Purushothaman vs Balakrishnan and Others

Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.—Heard.

The appellant challenges the order dismissing an application instituted for leave to sue as an indigent person. The court fee payable by him on the plaint is Rs. 58,700/-.

In his application before the court below, he had stated that he is an indigent person; that he retired from the Food Corporation of India and that his only income is the pension that he gets. He had stated that his monthly income by way of pension is Rs. 4,150/-, which is hardly sufficient for purchasing medicines and for meeting family expenses. The petitioner, going by the Indigent O.P., was aged 78 years at the time of its institution. He had stated in his application that he resides in a house in the property which his wife had obtained in lieu of acquisition of land by the Government. He had pleaded that he has no further income or job and has also no immovable property. He further stated that the only immovable property belongs to him is the plaint schedule property. This makes it clear that he has interest in the property which is subject matter of the suit.

In the cross examination, he said that an amount of Rs. 8,00,000/- was collected as compensation for land acquisition. In re-examination, it is clarified that the land acquired belonged to his wife. Therefore, his statement that he accompanied his wife to collect the land acquisition compensation does not mean that the amount covered by the acquisition belongs to him. The court below appears to have taken the view that the petitioner had suppressed the fact that he is an FCI pensioner. This is not correct. We have already noted his pleading in that regard. His statement that he lives in a house in Bolgatty is not in any manner sufficient to indicate that he has any other ways of income or means to pay the court fee.

In the aforesaid view of the matter, though learned Counsel for the contesting respondents attempted to point that the I.O.P. is barred by law, no provision having any bar under law is sustained. The mere contention of the respondents that the suit is one only for harassment cannot be countenanced as an answer to an application for leave to sue as an indigent person.

In the aforesaid circumstances, we are satisfied that the impugned order is unsustainable and the petitioner has shown that he does not have means to pay the court fee. Therefore, this FAO is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. I.O.P. No. 16/08 on the file of the Sub Court, Ernakulam stands allowed hereby.