DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

VISAKHAPATNAM, ANDHRA PRADESH

SUBJECT

LAW AND POVERTY

PROJECT TITLE

CASE ANALAYSIS

NAME OF THE FACULTY

Mr. ZAIN SALEH

NAME OF THE CANDIDATE

S.S .NAMRATHA

ROLL NUMBER

17LLB075

SEMESTER – IV
 CASE ANALYSIS
Case Title: Ruckmani v Venkatraj
Citation: C.M.A No 702 of 2005
Appellant: Ruckmani Respondent : Venkatraj
Brief facts of the case:
The petitioner or the plaintiff here has filed an original petition in the year 2004 before the District
Court, where here leave to sue as an indigent person and it was rejected by the judge before the
District Judge and she has directed an appeal by filing a civil miscellaneous appeal before the
appellate Court.

Contents of the Suit:

In the suit she has claimed for the delivery of possession of her suit property from the
defendant/respondent, the court fee that was incurred was seventy five thousand rupees and she
made an effort to approach the Court for leave and wanted to sue as an indigent person.

Grounds for rejecting her suit as an indigent person:

The two important grounds as stated or pointed out in the judgment are as follows:

 Foremost in this suit she was unable to prove that she was an indigent a person and she was
to prove that she was unable to pay the fees of the court.
 Secondly, there are some criminal charges against her and she was awarded conviction in
some cheating case.

Contention on behalf of the appellant:

The counsel representing the appellant petitioner in this case has contended that merely framing
her as a criminal she cannot be refused to be sought the leave on that ground and he also stated
that there was a property on which she was exercising limited estate ownership and in the year
1997 she has signed the deed of conveyance along with her son which has transferred her
ownership of her property to some other person and now after the execution of deed she is no more
the legal owner of that property and she does not have any property on her name and in her
possession therefore she has no money or any kind of source of income for the payment of court
fees.
Contention on behalf of Respondents:

Their contention was in her suit for claiming an exemption in court fees, Though she has filed an
affidavit that she is an indigent person she nowhere stated the reasons for her indigence and there
were no grounds mentioned by her in that affidavit , the respondents have produced an exhibit on
the deed of conveyance where she has sold her property to another for some consideration and she
has received some money as consideration and they stated that she has no intention to pay the court
fees therefore her suit is not valid.

Based on all these circumstances, the lower court has rejected her suit.

Discussion on Order 33 Rule 1 Civil Procedure Code:

The Court has discussed about Order 33 Rule 1 of CPC which basically is dealing with granting
permission and leave to sue and indigent person, which is famously known as “pauper suit” and
the person who is seeking for the entitlement for this suit is known as “pauper”,

The Court has stated that the word “pauper” is an indigent word which is more demeaning in nature

This word has been replaced by the word “indigent person” instead of the word “pauper” which is
done through an amendment in that particular year, so as of now the word indigent person is dealt
under Order 33 Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code.

What is Order 33 Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code?

Under this a suit can be initiated by an indigent person and there are few conditions for filing of
such suit and those conditions have to be complied with, these conditions to be complied are as
follows;

 If the person is not in the possession of sufficient means due to which he is unable to pay
the fees which has been imposed by the law for the plaint in such suit. This excludes the
property that has been attached in the execution of a decree and regarding the subject matter
of the suit.
 If such fees is not at all prescribed and in case if he is not entitled to the property which
values more than one thousand rupees and this excludes the property that has been
exempted for the purpose of attachment in execution of decree and regarding any contents
in that particular suit.
  If at all the person who is representing the suit of Order 33 Rule 1 and in case if he acquires
any property after the application has been represented or presented before the court of law,
and to represent himself as an indigent person and such application made is still pending
before the court of law. The property which has been acquired by him during the pendency
of suit has to be taken into consideration during the time of deciding his application, as to
see if he is actually an indigent person or not.
 If the person who is filing a suit to represent himself as an indigent person in any
representative capacity, this issue shall be determined in light of the all the means and
grounds which are being possessed by him in the capacity which he represented himself to
be.

Institution of appeal as an indigent person:

Code of Criminal procedure under Order 44 provides for the institution of appeal as an indigent
person, The court has clarified it that there is no restriction on any individual who is filing a suit
representing himself as an indigent person and who is asking for an exemption for the payment of
court fees before the High Court, and it cannot be rejected on the reason that under Order 33 Rule
1 of civil procedure Code by the lower court who has rejected his suit, an appeal shall therefore be
laid down by such person accordingly.

Discussion of Court on what amounts to indigency?

This entire concept of indigent person was elaborated in Corpus Juris Secundum which is as
follows:

This right to sue as an pauperis is strictly barred only to the indigent persons, he can be called as
an indigent person only if the court comes to a conclusion that the person who has filed such suit
and the court has to satisfactorily feel that the person who filed such suit is unable to pay the court
fees or any other expenses, another ground for considering him as an indigent person is the state
of impoverishment which will further effect or impair or stop the pursuit of the court remedy.

Although he must not necessarily be a destitute any other grounds which are considerable enough
at the time of determination if a litigant is indigent which are quite similar to those considered in
criminal cases and which further includes:
  Employment status
 Income of the party
 Benefits from government
 Social security
 Unemployment benefits
 Ownership of un-encumbered assests
 Real or Personal property
 Indebtedness
 Financial Assistance from other family members
 Liquid Assests
 Alternative Sources of income

Based on all these factors the acceptance of suit or the rejected of suit on his indigency will take
into consideration.

Objective of Order 33 and Order 44

The main purpose of both these orders under civil procedure code are to help a person which is
ridden by poverty and who do not have any means for the payment of court fees and help them to
seek justice

Both order 33 and order 44 which provides an exemption from paying court fees which provides
him to initiate suit and also appeal further for this purpose.

Issue:

 Whether the person who has filed the suit under order 33 rule 1 of Civil procedure code is
entitled to give him benefit of such suit?
 Whether he is entitled to exemption of court fee or not?

Application of facts to the case:

Based on all the factors which may satisfy the court that the person who has filed such suit is
entitled to receive an exemption from court. Therefore even in this case the counsel on behalf of
the lady who has filed the suit has successfully proved and satisfied the court that she doesnot have
any means for the payment of court fees

Observations:

Observation of lower court

The lower court has observed that the lady has been convicted under section 467 and 420 of Indian
Penal Code

 Section 467 is about forgery of valuble security and will

 Section 420 is about Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of the property.

Magistrate seeing this has come to a conclusion since there is a criminal case on her she is not
entitled to get benefit under Order 33 Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code and she cannot be called as
“pauper”.

Trail Court has even examined the sale deed document that the other party have produced against
the appellant showing that she has sufficient means and they have received a consideration upto
Rs 1,0,000 and based on this also trail court has rejected her application.

Observation by High Court:

But when she filed an appeal to high court, the high court has observed that There is no rule under
the code which says that a convict or a person who is having a criminal charges on him should not
be entitled the exemption under this Order33 Rule 1 and it nowhere mentions that he is a
disqualified person and is not entitled, therefore the high court stated that the observation and the
cancellation of suit is completely erroneous and is wrong.

Based on the sale deed document, the high court state that the trail court has unnecessarily relied
on the respondents without a thorough examination and also failed to decide the matter in regard
to Order 33 Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code.

The amount of court fee that is pending is Rs 75000/- and here the appellant is a widow and she
has only life estate on her property and the remaining property belongs to her son , here though
she entered into an agreement of sale along with her son , as she also has to sign with her son on
the sale contract made between buyer and the plaintiffs here , but here she has only life estate on
the property mentioned in the affidavit which is filed by respondents.

Another aspect that is considered by the court is she is widow and is presently aged more than fifty
years and even the respondents have failed to show that she has any other than means other than
the property which they contended but as even on that property she has only life estate so there is
no other means which she is having in her possession to pay court fees,

She is either not having any liquid cash nor she is having any property therefore on seeing all these
factors of indigency it can be observed that she has no money or means to pay the court fees.

There is no proof that she is receiving any monetary benefits from relatives or from her son to
show that she is able to pay the court fees.

Finally taking into account all these factors she can called as an indigent person within the ambit
of Order 33 Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code.

High court has stated that the observations made by high court are completely wrong and she has
to be entitled to the benefit and an exemption of court fees has to be given to her.

Cases Referred:

The Court has referred three other decided cases in this case which are as follows:

1. A.A Haja Muniuddin v. Indian Railways [1992 (4) SCC 736]

In this case court held that The individual access to justice cannot be denied merely on the
ground that he has no proper sufficient means to pay the court fees, since the indigent
persons cannot be able to pay court fee they cannot be denied of the justice, based solely
on the ground of non-payment of the fee.
2. Union Of India v Khader International Construction [21(5) SCC 22]
Indigent person can file an application under Order 33 Rule 1 for not paying the court fee
at the very beginning stage, in case if he able to satisfy the grounds for his indigency then
the court will calculate the amount which he had to be pay otherwise if he was not an
indigent person, after the calculation then the court has to recover such amount from the
State. If court rejects the suit then the plaintiff has to make the payment and not the state.
3. Mathai M Paikeday v. C.K Antony [ 2011(13) SCC 174]
 Supreme court in this case has given some other factors which the courts has to take into
consideration during the decision of indigency suit such as his employment, his income, his
assests, if there is an form of monetary assistance from the relatives or any other members and
has also to look if he is having any sufficient means for payment of court fees,

Judgement:

The High court stated that the trail court was wrong in its decision for dismissing the suit filed by
the plaintiff and has reversed the order and set aside the decretal order of lower court and has
allowed the appeal filed by her. The high court has directed the trail court to take her suit into
consideration based on all the observations made by them and asked not to insist her for the
payment of court fees and has decided matter accordingly

Personal Opinion:

This cases helps us to understand what exactly are the factors that have to be taken into
consideration in allowing the suit that is filed under Order 33 Rule 1 of civil procedure code and
this Order is completely in favour of indigent persons who do not have basic sources or means for
the payment of court fees, The non-payment of court fees should not be a ground for the denial of
justice , based on the judgment given by apex court it is clearly evident that if an indigent person
is unable to make the payment then that amount can be recovered from the state.

There are many factors that have to be proved by the person who is filing a suit, if he succeeds
then he will granted with an exemption along with other stamp fees and so on from the court, based
on the observations made by the high court I came to a conclusion that High Court was correct in
allowing her appeal and granting her for the entitlement of the exemption of court fees since here
the respondents failed to show that she has sufficient means and the counsel representing her have
created a satisfactory opinion in the minds of court , so in this case the court was correct in its view
and reversing the judgment of lower court, This reduces the burden on that indigent lady as has
done justice to her, So based on the factors given by the supreme court the court have to clearly
examine the application for such suit.