IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 23RD JULY 2010 / 1ST SRAVANA 1932 FAO.No. 88 of 2010() -------------------- I.A.NO.1227(a)/2009 IN OS.49/2008 of SUB COURT,KATTAPPANA .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF: -------------------------------------------------- THANGAPANDI, S/O HARAYANA SAMY, THIRUPURKUMARAM STREET, PALANICHETTIPATTI, VEERAPANDI VILLAGE, THENI DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU. BY ADV. SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE SRI.PHILIP M.VARUGHESE RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS AND STATE: ------------------------------------------- 1. VEERANNA, S/O LAKSHMAN NAIDU, 40,LIC COLONY, SUBRAMANIAPURAM, R.S.PURAM, COIMBATORE, COIMBATORE DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU. 2. VEERALAKSHMI, W/O VEERANNA, 40,LIC COLONY, SUBRAMANIAPURAM, R.S.PURAM, COIMBATORE, COIMBATORE DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI, KERALA. 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THENI, TAMIL NADU. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.B.RAMANAND FOR R3 THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER IN I.A.NO.1227/2010 IN F.A.O.NO.88/2010 DISMISSED. 23.7.2010 SD/- THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE SD/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN & S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JJ. ------------------------------- F.A.O.NO.88 OF 2010 () ----------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. This appeal is against the order by which the court below has refused to permit the plaintiff/appellant to sue as an indigent person. 2. The appellant instituted the suit before the court below for specific performance of an agreement for sale, with an alternate relief for return of advance. He pleaded that defendants 1 and 2 had agreed to sell to him 7.59 acres of land planted with cardamom for a total sale consideration of Rs.5,46,480/-, however that, the defendants thereafter refused to sell. He sued for specific performance alleging that he had already paid an advance of Rs.5 lakhs out of Rs.5,46,480/-. FAO.88/10 2 3. In support of his application for leave to sue as an indigent, he gave evidence as PW1. He stated that he is a coolie worker and that he had already paid the advance amount of Rs.5 lakhs after borrowing it from his brothers-in-law. He said that he has some land in which there are cardamom plants around six years old. He further deposed that he along with his parents, sisters and brothers-in-law take care of that property and that there is yield from two acres. The court below noted that he has also stated that they may get about 100 kg of cardamom per season. With the aforesaid, the court below took the view that the plaintiff, getting around 100 kg of cardamom from 2 acres of land, has sufficient means to pay the court fee. In support of his appeal, we have heard his learned counsel. The respondents does not appear. 4. Having seen the materials, we notice that the plaintiff ought not have been refused the opportunity to sue as an indigent person as he had, on the basis of his uncontroverted oral evidence, stated that he does not have the ability to pay FAO.88/10 3 court fee. He is not shown to have suppressed any relevant material. We are of the view that the court below should have taken a lenient view in the matter as regards the balance court fee. The plaintiff has already paid 1/10 th court fee at the institution of the suit. With the aforesaid, this F.A.O. is allowed. I.A.No.1227 (a) of 2009 in O.S.No.49 of 2008 will stand allowed. The court below will now proceed to list the suit for further consideration in accordance with law, at the earliest. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN JUDGE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp FAO.88/10 4