Dismissed

Babu v. Peter John Aswez

Kerala HC20 Jul 2009CMCP/14/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an application by an appellant challenging a specific performance decree. The Court held that the appellant failed to disclose movable assets and had sufficient means to pay the court fee despite claims of indigency.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner/appellant given one month's time from the date of the order to pay the required court fee; application for indigent status dismissed.

Babu Vs Peter John Aswez — Kerala HC (2009) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 20TH JULY 2009 / 29TH ASHADHA 1931

¶5

CMCP.No. 14 of 2009()IN RFA ......OF 2009

¶6

--------------------OS.521/2007 of I ADDL.SUB COURT,ERNAKULAM ....................

¶7

APPELLANT/DEFENDANT

¶8

¶9

BABU, S/O.THANKAPPAN AGED 34 YEARS, MANAYATHUPARAMBIL HOUSE KUNNUMMAL ROAD, VADUTHALA, ERNAKULAM KOCHI 23

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.K.R.VINOD

¶11

RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF:

¶12

¶13

PETER JOHN ASWEZ S/O JOHN AGED 41 YEARS PANIKKARAPARAMBIL HOUSE KUNNUMMAL ROAD, VADUTHALA, ERNAKULAM KOCHI 23

¶14

SRI.T.K.ABRAHAM

¶15

THIS CIVIL MISC. CASE(PAUPER) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/07/2009, THE COURT ON 20.07.2009 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

P.R.RAMAN & P.BHAVADASAN, JJ.

¶17

CMC(P) No.14 OF 2009 in RFA -------------------------------------------------------Dated 20^th July 2009

¶18

Order

¶19

BHAVADASAN, J.

¶20

The defendant, who suffered a decree at the hands of the First Additional Sub Court, Ernakulam, is the appellant.

¶21

The suit was one for specific performance. Ext.A1 dated 20.12.2006 is the agreement for sale. When the defendant did not comply with the terms of the agreement, the suit was laid. After considering the rival contentions, the suit was decreed, granting specific performance and directing the plaintiff to deposit the balance sales consideration within two months. The defendant appealed against the said judgment and decree.

¶22

In the appeal before this court, the appellant has to pay a court fee of Rs.50,400/-. According to him, he has no means to pay the court fee. He, therefore, prays that he may be permitted to file the appeal as indigent person.

¶23

The application was very strongly resisted by the respondent, who pointed out that the appellant has means

¶24

CMC(P) 14/09

¶25

¶26

sufficient to pay the court fee and he has deliberately omitted to include all his movable properties in the schedule. It is also pointed out that the appellant has assets, which he has not disclosed. Considering the rival claims, it was felt that it will be appropriate to direct the lower court to consider the issue regarding the assets available with the appellant and also call for a report from the Tahsildar. The report of the Tahsildar showed that the appellant has not disclosed all his movable assets before the Sub Court. From the side of the plaintiff, PW1 to PW3 were examined and Exts.A1 to A7 were marked. The defendant examined DW1 and Exts.B1 to B4 were marked.

¶27

From the report of the Tahsildar, it can be seen that the appellant is a carpenter by profession. In the report, it is also stated that he was doing carpentary work for a building recently constructed. The trial court has also observed that in order to claim the benefit, he has removed all the movable articles to his wife's house. It is also seen that the appellant was able to pay another liability very recently. It is further seen that quite recently, he has settled another money

¶28

CMC(P) 14/09

¶29

¶30

claim amounting to Rs.5 lakhs. Since the petitioner in this petition has not disclosed all his assets and also since it is seen from the report that he has sufficient means to pay the court fee, this petition is only to be dismissed. The CMC(P) is accordingly dismissed and the petitioner is given one month's time from the date of this order to pay the required court fee.

¶31

P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE

¶32

P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE

¶33

sta

¶34

CMC(P) 14/09 4

Babu v. Peter John Aswez

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Babu v. Peter John Aswez

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Travancore Devaswom Board Vs the Deputy Director of Local Fund Accoun

D.Rajendran Vs Kerala State Cashew Development

M.a.Majeed Vs the State of Kerala

Achuthan Pillai Vs Art Leasing Limited

Sri. Madhusudhanan I.M. Vs M/S. Advance Paints Pvt. Ltd.

Sebastian Vs Selvaraj