Ramanuja Ayyangar Petitioner. v. V.S Gopalan And Another

In this case the present two respondents who are brothers were allowed to sue as paupers in the Court below. The 4th respondent in the lower Court (present petitioner) has filed this Revision Petition. Mr. Muthuswami Ayyar who appeared for the petitioner here argued that as it appears from the evidence of the present 1st respondent that the respondents are entitled to a certain mortgage on which they have already filed a suit in the Mayavaram Court for Rs. 600 odd, they should not be considered to be paupers. The Court-fee required for this suit is more than Rs. 200. It is clear that the plaintiffs have no other property besides the claim on the above mortgage in the Mayavaram Court. In that Court they were allowed to sue as paupers. Mr. Muthuswami Ayyar relies on the decision in Kapil Deo Singh v. Ram Rikha Singh where it was held that in a suit for redemption if it can be shown that the plaintiff can raise money on his equity of redemption he cannot be allowed to sue as a pauper. I agree. But until it is shown that he can raise money I think it follows that he is a pauper. The plaintiff has formally to say that he is unable to raise money on the equity of redemption. It may be that defendant by his cross-examination of the plaintiff may show that money can be raised. It all depends upon the circumstances of each case and it cannot be laid down as an abstract proposition that in every case where the plaintiff has got a mortgage or a similar claim he cannot be regarded as a pauper. This is what my brother Walsh, J., says in Sundarathammal v. Paramaswami Asari . The learned Judge says:

“It is not, to my mind, so much a question whether they have this power in the abstract, but whether in the concrete circumstances of this case they could succeed in raising anything substantial by exercising it.”

The same remarks apply to some extent to another case cited by Mr. Muthusawami Iyer, Lal Chand v. Mt. Pisto (3). I agree with the learned Judge who decided the latter case (Harrison, J.) when he says that ornaments in the possession of a lady or fixed deposit receipts must be regarded as means of raising money for filing suits, because it is well known that those things are easily convertible into money. But a mortgage claim for Rs. 600, is not such a clear matter. Whether that suit is going to be decreed or not and whether if it is decreed money can be realised seeing that immoveable properties have considerably fallen in value in these days are problems which have got to be considered in deciding whether the mortgage claim can be considered as a means of raising money. And it is also a question whether anybody will lend money on the basis of a man being merely possessed of such a right. The District Munsif is of opinion that the present respondents must be regarded as paupers. The facts brought before me are not such as to enable me to say that his conclusion is wrong and his discretion was erroneously exercised.

I dismiss this Civil Revision Petition with costs.

N. R. R.Petition dismissed.