The High Court allowed the petitioner's petition to proceed as an indigent person. It held that rent from gifted property may be considered for subsistence, permitting the appeal without court fees, with conditions to pay if funds arise.
Petitioner permitted to prosecute proceedings as an indigent person in the appeal without paying court fees.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV
CIVIL PETITION No. 171/2015
Between :
Sri. N. Rajarathnam Aged about 68 years S/o. Late Gurvaiah Setty Residing at No.16, Kabadi Revanna Setty Road, Avenue Road Cross, Bangalore 560 002.
… Petitioner
(By Sri C.M.Poonacha, Advocate)
And :
Sri. Jayantilal B. Chowhan Aged about 61 years S/o. Bhoormal chowhan, Residing at Vardhaman Pharma Distributors Pvt. Ltd., No.5, Gandhi Bazar, Basavanagudi, Bangalore 560 036.
… Respondent
(By Sri Bharath S., Adv. for Sri. P. B. Raju, Adv.)
This Civil Petition is filed under order 44 Rule 1 of CPC praying to allow the petitioner to prefer the Regular First Appeal filed by him in R.F.A.No.1023/2015 aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 11.03.2015 passed in O.S.No.9519/1997, as an indigent person.
2
This Civil Petition coming on for orders this day, the Court, made the following:
ORDER
Petitioner has filed the present petition seeking to prosecute the proceedings as an indigent person in R.F.A.No.1023/2015 whereby the judgment and decree dated 11.03.2015 passed in O.S.No.9519/1997 has been challenged.
from his two children. It is submitted that he is not keeping in good health and has no other source of income and being unable to raise funds to meet the financial requirement by
3
paying Court fee in the ordinary course, he seeks to sue as indigent person.
directed to look into the aspect of financial status of the petitioner and file a report as per the order dated 27.04.2016. A memo has been filed enclosing copy of the
report of the Tahsildar, who states that petitioner is deriving rent of Rs.4,000/- and has estimated annual income of Rs.48,000/-. It is also stated that petitioner has an immovable property, in which he is residing. The matter was referred for enquiry before the Registrar (Judicial) and the petitioner has asserted that he has no financial capacity to raise funds to pay Court fee in the appeal and has led his examination-in-chief before the Registrar (Judicial). Petitioner was also subjected to cross-examination and no
other factors to controvert the assertions of the petitioner has come forth in the cross-examination. In fact, it also comes out that the house in which the petitioner is residing has been gifted to his son. It further comes out that he is
4
receiving Rs.4,000/- as rent from the tenant and all other suggestions to the contrary regarding receipt of higher rent have been denied. It also comes out that his children are in no way contributing to assist him financially and hence, he has sought for permission to continue the proceedings as indigent person.
5
uncontroverted. Petitioner has an income of Rs.4,000/- per month with no other financial assistance from his children and accordingly, the income of Rs.4,000/- could be stated to be income for his subsistence and daily living and cannot be taken note for the purpose of finding out as to whether petitioner could pay Court fee.
steps to pay the Court fee.
Sd/JUDGE
VP
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner qualifies as an indigent person despite deriving rent from gifted property to prosecute an appeal without court fees.
Whether the petitioner's income from rent should be considered for subsistence when determining indigence.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sri. N. Rajarathnam
Sri. Jayantilal B. Chowhan
S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court