JAI DEVI Vs. HARBANSI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the order dated 5.4.2003 passed by the learned District Judge, Hamirpur in Civil Suit No. 5 of 2003, whereby permission has been granted to respondent No1/plaintiff to sue as an indigent person.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit in forma pauperis. She along with the suit filed an application under Order 33 rule 1 CPC. The allegations of the petitioner are that she is an old lady not having sufficient means to maintain herself and facing starvation. The petitioner-defendant is the sister of the plaintiff-respondent No.1. The plaintiff who was the owner of a large extent of land measuring more than 25 kanals gifted a major portion of her land in favour of her sister on 27.8.1991. According to the plaintiff, the defendant had promised to look after and maintain the plaintiff but since she did not do so, she had no option but to file a suit for grant of maintenance. Initially, the suit was filed in the Court of Sub Judge Ist Class, Barsar. This was returned since the Sub Judge did not have the pecuniary jurisdiction to hear the suit. Thereafter the plaintiff filed a fresh petition and suit before the learned District Judge, Hamirpur. The same was filed on 10.10.2002 and it was recorded as follows:-

(3.) ON 9.12.2002, the defendant was duly represented by her counsel. The Court recorded that the report of the Collector had not been received. It was thereafter listed for filing of the report and objections, if any. The petitioner, meanwhile, filed reply to the application. Report from the Collector was received and the Collector recorded that in fact the petitioner is owner and in possession of land measuring 4 kanals 9 marlas. The Collector reported that from this land, the petitioner is having annual income of Rs.2700/- per annum and in addition, she is getting Rs.150/- per month as old age pension from the State. Counsel for the parties were allowed to make submissions qua the report. Counsel for the petitioner on the next date placed on record average sale price of the land owned and possessed by the respondent and on this basis, it was submitted that she owned the property worth a huge amount and therefore could not be said to be an indigent person. The learned trial court held that the yield from the property was only Rs. 2700/- per annum and it was not the value of the property but the yield which has to be taken into consideration. The application was allowed. It is against this order that the present petition has been filed.