Allowed

Jagathijyothy v. Usha Dhananjayan

Kerala HC15 Feb 2016FAO/209/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal challenged an order denying indigent status under Order 33 CPC. The High Court held that even assuming suppression of fractional property rights, the values were insufficient to pay the required court fee, setting aside the lower court's order and allowing the suit.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order setting aside; appellant allowed to sue as an indigent person in the aforesaid suit.

Jagathijyothy Vs Usha Dhananjayan — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD

¶5

MONDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/26TH MAGHA, 1937

¶6

FAO.No. 209 of 2015

¶7

AGAINST THE ORDER IN P.O.P. 1/2014 of SUB COURT, CHAVAKKAD DATED 30.6.2015

¶8

APPELLANT/PETITIONER :

¶9

JAGATHJYOTHY, AGED 53 YEARS,

¶10

D/O. AMBATT VEETIL ARAVINDAKSHAN NAIR, NATTIKA VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK W/O. ARACKAL ELEDATHATTIL GOVINDANKUTTY.

¶11

BY ADVS.SRI.M.R.VENUGOPAL SMT.DHANYA P.ASHOKAN

¶12

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS :

¶13

USHA DHANANJAYAN, AGED 49 YEARS, W/O. LATE DHANANJAYAN, AMBATT VEETIL, THRIPRAYAR DESOM NATTIKA VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, PIN-680 567.

¶14

KRISHNENDU (MINOR), AGED 15 YEARS D/O. LATE DHANANJAYAN REPRESENTED BY MOTHER AND GUARDIAN USHA DHANANJAYAN W/O. LATE DHANANJAYAN, AGED 49 YEARS, AMBATT VEETIL,

¶15

THRIPRAYAR DESOM, NATTIKA VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, PIN-680 567.

¶16

KRISHNAVENI (MINOR), AGED 9 YEARS, D/O. LATE DHANANJAYAN, REPRESENTED BY MOTHER AND GUARDIAN USHA DHANANJAYAN W/O. LATE DHANANJAYAN, AGED 49 YEARS, AMBATT VEETIL,

¶17

THRIPRAYAR DESOM, NATTIKA VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, PIN-680 567.

¶18

CHANDRIKA , AGED 60 YEARS, W/O. ARAVINDAKSHAN NAIR, THRIPRAYAR DESOM NATTIKA VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, PIN-680 567.

¶19

ROHINI , AGED 35 YEARS, D/O. ARAVINDAKSHAN NAIR, THRIPRAYAR DESOM NATTIKA VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, PIN-680 567.

¶20

THRIVENI, AGED 33 YEARS, D/O. ARAVINDAKSHAN NAIR, THRIPRAYAR DESOM NATTIKA VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, PIN-680 567.

¶21

NIYAS , AGED 39 YEARS, S/O. PADUVINGAL MUHAMMED HANEEFA, INCHAMUDY VILLAGE AND DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK, PIN-680 312.

¶22

FAO.No. 209 of 2015

¶23

:: 2 ::

¶24

MUHAMMED HANEEFA (DIED), AGED 62 YEARS S/O. PADUVINGAL KUNJABDULNCHAMUDY VILLAGE AND DESOM THRISSUR TALUK, PIN-680 312.

¶25

NISA HANEEFA , AGED 60 YEARS W/O. LATE MUHAMMED HANEEFA INCHAMUDY VILLAGE AND DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK PIN-680 312.

¶26

NISAD , AGED 37 YEARS S/O. PADUVINGAL MUHAMMED HANEEFA INCHAMUDY VILLAGE AND DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK PIN-680 312.

¶27

NIVAS, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O. PADUVINGAL MUHAMMED HANEEFA INCHAMUDY VILLAGE AND DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK PIN-680 312.

¶28

NISAM , AGED 32 YEARS S/O. PADUVINGAL MUHAMMED HANEEFA INCHAMUDY VILLAGE AND DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK PIN-680 312.

¶29

NISHIDA BASHEER , AGED 29 YEARS S/O. PADUVINGAL MUHAMMED HANEEFA INCHAMUDY VILLAGE AND DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK PIN-680 312.

¶30

R1 -R 6 BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) R7 BY ADV. SRI.SANTHOSH P. PODUVAL R7 BY ADV. SMT.R.RAJITHA R7 BY ADV. SMT.VINAYA V. NAIR

¶31

THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15-02-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶32

ANTONY DOMINIC & A.HARIPRASAD, JJ.

¶33

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - F.A.O.No.209 of 2015

¶34

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 15^th day of February, 2016

¶35

JUDGMENT

¶36

Hariprasad, J.

¶37

Appeal is against the order passed by the learned Sub Judge, Chavakkad in P.O.P.No.1/14, whereby the appellant was found to be not an indigent person entitled to the benefit under Order 33 of the CPC.

¶38

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 6 and the 7^th respondent.

¶39

The suit is one for declaration that a registered document bearing No.446/2001 of the S.R.O., Thriprayar, an award passed in P.L.P.No. 178/14 and also registered documents bearing Nos.796/14 767/14 and 798/14 of the same S.R.O. are null and void. The suit is valued at Rs.3,60,00,500/and the court fee payable under the provisions of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act is Rs.28,98,420/-. The appellant contended that she has no means to pay the said amount as court fee. Therefore, she claimed the benefit under Order 33 Rule 1 CPC. The contesting respondents opposed the claim of the plaintiff.

¶40

F.A.O.No.209 of 2015

¶41

: 2 :

¶42

After considering the rival contentions, the court below found that the petitioner had suppressed her fractional right over 12.5 cents of property comprised in Re Survey No.320/1 of Thriprayar village. It was also found that this property was not included in the list of assets of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that there was a litigation in respect of this property and it was agreed that her fractional right would be settled for Rs.5,00,000/-. According to the appellant, that amount was not paid to the appellant. Learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent submitted that apart from this property, another item of 5 cents wherein the appellant is residing is also not shown in the list of properties. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, the court below has rightly invoked the provisions under Order 33 Rule 5 C.P.C., since there was material suppression of assets by the appellant.

¶43

After hearing the learned counsel on both sides, we are of the view that even if the entire properties said to have been suppressed by the plaintiff are taken into account, we are of the view that they may not be sufficient to pay the required court fee. Therefore, the reasoning

¶44

F.A.O.No.209 of 2015

¶45

: 3 :

¶46

stated by the court below cannot be sustained. The impugned order is

¶47

set aside. Appellant is allowed to sue as an indigent person in the

¶48

aforesaid suit.

¶49

Appeal is allowed.

¶50

Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE

¶51

Sd/- A.HARIPRASAD JUDGE

¶52

A.HARIPRASAD

¶53

jes

Jagathijyothy v. Usha Dhananjayan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagathijyothy v. Usha Dhananjayan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rani Mathew Vs Rosy Reena George

State of Kerala Vs a.Hassanar

Thomas v.Kurian Vs Abdu Rahiman

Smt. O.G.Sunil Vs the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

J.Ramkumar Vs Ashok K.Jacob

T.v.Varghese Vs Ravindranathan Nair