THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.53 of 2011 ORDER: This revision under Article 227 of the Constitution is against the order dated 24.08.2010 of the learned VI Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, rejecting I.A.No.1352 of 2009 filed by the revision petitioner/first defendant in O.S.No.125 of 2009, a suit instituted by the respondent/plaintiff, who is revision petitioner’s sister, for partition and separate possession of the scheduled properties claiming that they are held jointly by her along with the revision petitioner and the other defendants in the suit. Prior to the filing of the suit, the respondent/plaintiff filed an application under Section 12(c) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (for short ‘the Act’) and obtained exemption from paying the Court fee for an amount of Rs.45,632/- claiming that she being a woman is exempted from paying the Court fee under Section 12(c) of the Act. On the exemption having been granted, the suit was numbered as O.S.No.125 of 2009 and the revision petitioner/first defendant filed I.A.No.1352 of 2009 under Section 151 C.P.C. read with Section 12(c) of the Act pleading that as the respondent/plaintiff failed to file proof of her lack of means, the Legal Services Authority erred in granting exemption without making an enquiry as to the value of movable and immovable properties held by the respondent/plaintiff and her ability to pay the Court fee and since exemption was granted against law, the Court below should enquire into the matter and frame a preliminary issue as to the maintainability of the suit without paying the Court fee. This application was dismissed by the order impugned. The Court below held that the revision petitioner/first defendant relies on the provision of Order XXXIII C.P.C. which contemplates canceling the Court fee exemption and this provision has no application when exemption was granted in terms of Section 12(c) of the Act. The Court below also held that the procedure contemplated under Order XXXIII C.P.C. on the one hand and Section 12(c) of the Act on the other, are entirely different and cannot be equated. For granting exemption in favour of a women or a child – the class of persons enumerated in Section 12(c) of the Act, the requirement of lack of income specified in Clause (h) of Section 12 of the Act is not applicable. This Court discerns no error in the appreciation of law or in the analysis of the relevant factors by the Court below warranting interference in this revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Section 12 of the Act sets out criteria for grant of legal services and stipulates that every person, who has to file or defend a case, shall be entitled to legal services under this Act if that person satisfies the enumerated criteria in Clauses (a) to (g) in Section 12 of the Act; which refer to persons belonging to a scheduled caste or scheduled tribe; or victims of trafficking in human beings or begar as referred to in Article 23 of the Constitution of India; a women or a child (Clause (c) ); or persons with disability as defined in Clause (i) of Section 2 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995; or a person under circumstances of undeserved want such as being a victim of a mass disaster, ethnic violence, caste atrocity, flood, drought, earthquake or industrial disaster; or industrial workmen; or a person in custody, including custody in a protective home etc; or a person in receipt of annual income less than the amount stipulated/specified in Clause (h) of Section 12 of the Act. Section 13 of the Act refers to the entitlement for legal services. It enjoins in Sub-Section (1) that a person, who satisfies all or any of the criteria specified in Section 12, shall be entitled to receive legal services provided that the concerned Authority is satisfied that such person has a prima facie case to prosecute or to defend. Sub-Section (2) of Section 13 of the Act provides that an affidavit made by a person as to his income may be regarded as sufficient for making him eligible to the entitlement of legal services under the Act unless the concerned Authority has reason to disbelieve such affidavit. On a conjoint reading of the provisions of the several Clauses in Section 12 and the provisions of Section 13 of the Act, it is clear that persons or classes of persons falling within Clauses (a) to (g) of Section 12 of the Act are entitled to the legal services under the Act, merely on account of belonging to the categories enumerated in the aforementioned Clauses. Persons other than those falling within Clauses (a) to (g) of Section 12 of the Act are also entitled to the legal services provided under the Act, subject however to the condition that they satisfy the annual income prescriptions stipulated in Clause (h) of Section 12 of the Act. On a true and fair construction of the provisions of Section 12 of the Act, the inference is compelling that a woman or a child – enumerated category in clause (c) of Section 12 of the Act, is not required to satisfy the annual income stipulations enumerated in Clause (h) of Section 12 of the Act. Merely on account of being a woman or a child, a person would be entitled to the legal services provided under the Act. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/first defendant – Sri A. Nagendra Rao relies on the judgment of a learned Division Bench of this Court in Masarath Jahan Begum vs. Smt. Masood Hashim Ali[1] to contend that satisfaction of lack of means as stipulated in Clause (h) of Section 12 of the Act is a condition precedent even for a woman or a child to avail the benefits of legal services provided under the provisions of the Act. This is a contention that is stated to be rejected. The judgment of the Division Bench does not so hold. The facts of that case are that the writ petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging an order dated 31.08.2008 passed by the Ranga Reddy District Legal Services Authority in I.R.P.No.5 of 2009 declining exemption from payment of Court fee and sought a consequential direction to respondent No.18 to issue a certificate under Section 13 of the Act in her favour to enable her to institute a suit for partition against respondent Nos.3 to 13 in accordance with the draft plaint submitted to the Legal Services Authority. The petitioner had filed a petition under Section 13(1) of the Act before respondent No.18 seeking legal aid by way of exemption of Court fee of Rs.14,65,355/-, to institute a suit for partition; pleading that an earlier suit O.S.No.42 of 1962 on the file of I Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, filed by her father one Hashim Ali Khan was decreed; in the final decree proceedings in I.A.No.854 of 1984, the petitioner and respondent Nos.1 and 2 therein were brought on record as legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff; that the decree had become final and binding on the parties concerned and that in the final decree proceedings, it was also recorded that the possession of the suit schedule property was already delivered to defendant Nos.3 to 16 in that suit. In the suit proposed to be filed by the petitioner therein, a final decree for partition and separate possession by metes and bounds was sought directing defendant Nos.1 to 16 to deliver vacant and physical possession of the plaintiff’s 29.16% share in the suit schedule lands bearing specified survey numbers and for other reliefs. She claimed that a second suit for partition of joint family members was not prohibited under C.P.C. when the first suit had not culminated into a valid decree as contemplated by law and that she is entitled to sue the defendants for partition as she is entitled to claim 29.16% share. The learned Senior Civil Judge-cum- Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Ranga Reddy District, by the order impugned in that writ petition held that in the final decree proceedings in I.A.No.854 of 1984, the petitioner and respondent Nos.1 and 2 therein were brought on record as legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff and thus the petitioner therein is a party to the final decree proceedings and aware of the proceedings and further the assignment of the suit schedule property was made in favour of respondent Nos.3 to 16 therein; and that since no appeal was preferred thereagainst, the principle of res judicata applies and the petitioner therein does not have a prima facie case to institute a second suit for partition; and she is not entitled to legal aid as sought. It is in this context that the learned Division Bench of this Court has held that satisfaction as to a prima facie case is required to be recorded under Section 13(1) of the Act for grant of exemption to prosecute or defend a case by an applicant for the benefits under the Act. There is no such plea or contention, pleaded or urged, in the case on hand by the revision petitioner/first defendant against the respondent/plaintiff, who is his own sister. The learned Division Bench of this Court did not hold either expressly or by compelling implication that a woman or a child (Clause (c) of Section 12 of the Act) must also satisfy the means test specified in Clause (h) of Section 12 of the Act. The judgment in Masarath Jahan Begum (supra) has therefore no application to the grievance presented in this revision. For the aforementioned reasons, the revision is misconceived and the same is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. ___________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J 05th August, 2011 GHN [1] 2011 (3) ALT 256 (D.B.)