Skip to content


Vellingiri Naicken and anr. Vs. Sree Patteswaraswami Devasthanam by Its Managing Trustees, S. Beemiah Chettiar and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1949)1MLJ558
AppellantVellingiri Naicken and anr.
RespondentSree Patteswaraswami Devasthanam by Its Managing Trustees, S. Beemiah Chettiar and ors.
Excerpt:
- .....properties in suit were communal lands available to the residents of perur for public charitable purposes and for securing to the residents the benefits arising out of such user of the suit properties. the only question which arose before the learned subordinate judge was whether the petitioners could be held to be paupers within the meaning of order 33, rule-i read with explanation (iii) of the civil procedure code. i entirely agree with the learned subordinate judge that if the suit is on behalf of the residents of perur, it cannot be said that they are not possessed of sufficient means to enable the court-fee to be paid. under explanation (iii) when a plaintiff sues in a representative capacity, the question of pauperism shall be determined with reference to the means possessed by.....
Judgment:

P. V. Rajamannar, J.

1. There is no substance in this civil revision petition. The petitioners applied, for leave to file in forma pauperis a suit on their own behalf and on behalf of the public residents of Perur for certain reliefs including a relief of declaration that the properties in suit were communal lands available to the residents of Perur for public charitable purposes and for securing to the residents the benefits arising out of such user of the suit properties. The only question which arose before the learned Subordinate Judge was whether the petitioners could be held to be paupers within the meaning of Order 33, rule-I read with Explanation (iii) of the Civil Procedure Code. I entirely agree with the learned Subordinate Judge that if the suit is on behalf of the residents of Perur, it cannot be said that they are not possessed of sufficient means to enable the court-fee to be paid. Under Explanation (iii) when a plaintiff sues in a representative capacity, the question of pauperism shall be determined with reference to the means possessed by him in such capacity. For instance, the particular plaintiff suing in a representative capacity may be himself a pauper; but if he is suing on behalf of other persons who cannot be described to be paupers, he is certainly not entitled to the benefit of Order 33 by reason of his individual pauperism.

2. The civil revision petition is therefore dismissed with costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //