Skip to content


Melagiri Venkatarao Vs. Karnam Vyasa Rao Alias Dasappa and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
Subject civil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1948Mad364
AppellantMelagiri Venkatarao
RespondentKarnam Vyasa Rao Alias Dasappa and ors.
Cases ReferredChellammal v. Muthulakhmi Ammal
Excerpt:
- - 2. the petitioner failed to reveal in the schedule attached to his application all the property in his possession; and the lower court was of opinion that this failure to disclose was wilful and showed lack of good faith. the utmost good faith is required of the petitioner in the matter of disclosure of his or her assets and any intentional departure from good faith whatever the motive may be must result in the dismissal of the petition. but we are not here concerned with the question whether his failure to disclose made any practical difference, but whether he acted in good faith;.....and the lower court was of opinion that this failure to disclose was wilful and showed lack of good faith. following the decision in chellammal v. muthulakhmi ammal (1945) 58 m.l.w. 21 he dismissed the application, quoting the following words of the learned chief justice:the utmost good faith is required of the petitioner in the matter of disclosure of his or her assets and any intentional departure from good faith whatever the motive may be must result in the dismissal of the petition.it is argued that even if the petitioner had revealed all the property in his possession, it would not only have been included in the schedule to his application but also in the schedule to the plaint; and so for the purpose of ascertaining whether he was a pauper or not that property would not have.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Horwill, J.

1. This revision petition is filed against the order of the District Judge of Anantapur dismissing the application of the petitioner to sue in forma pauperis.

2. The petitioner failed to reveal in the schedule attached to his application all the property in his possession; and the lower Court was of opinion that this failure to disclose was wilful and showed lack of good faith. Following the decision in Chellammal v. Muthulakhmi Ammal (1945) 58 M.L.W. 21 he dismissed the application, quoting the following words of the learned Chief Justice:

The utmost good faith is required of the petitioner in the matter of disclosure of his or her assets and any intentional departure from good faith whatever the motive may be must result in the dismissal of the petition.

It is argued that even if the petitioner had revealed all the property in his possession, it would not only have been included in the schedule to his application but also in the schedule to the plaint; and so for the purpose of ascertaining whether he was a pauper or not that property would not have been taken into consideration. That may be so; but we are not here concerned with the question whether his failure to disclose made any practical difference, but whether he acted in good faith; in other words, whether he intentionally refrained from disclosing this property or whether it was omitted from the schedule through' ignorance on his part that the property belonged to him and his father. On that question, the learned District Judge has given his finding; and that finding is not one that can be questioned in revision. The learned District Judge saw the petitioner in the box and was not prepared to accept his explanation.

3. The petition fails and is dismissed with costs (one set).


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