IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN MONDAY, THE 10TH MARCH 2008 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1929 CMCP.No. 63 of 2004() --------------------- OS.196/1999 of ADDL.SUB COURT, PALAKKAD .................... APPELLANT/2ND DEFENDANT --------------------------------- NARAYANAN, S/O.KOTHANDAN, AGED 61 YEARS, CHOORKUNNIL, ARIVKALPADAM, KANNAMBRA AMSOM DESOM, ALATHUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.S.V.BALAKRISHNA IYER (SR.) SRI.K.JAYAKUMAR SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN SMT.GEETHA P.MENON SRI.M.K.SREEGESH SRI.A.V.M.SALAHUDDEEN RESPONDENTS: PLAINTIFF & 1ST DEFENDANTS --------------------------------------- 1. MANUAL SONS FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES (P) LTD., M.O.ROAD, THRISSUR VILLAGE AND TALUK. 2. JOSEPH JOHN, S/O.JOHN, AGED 42 YEARS, PUNNAPADAM, KIZHAKKENCHERRY AMSOM, ALATHUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.A.MOHAMMED MUSTAQUE SRI.KAUSER EDAPPAGATH GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS CIVIL MISC. CASE(PAUPER) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMAN & V.K.MOHANAN, JJ. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C.M.C.(P).No.63/2004 in Unnumbered R.F.A ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Dated this the 10th day of March, 2008 O R D E R P.R.RAMAN, J. Heard. The Special Tahsildar has reported that property in survey No.327/1 was subsequently transferred in favour of the minor son of the appellant Sri.Subash vide document No.254/02. The counsel for the plaintiff/first respondent submits that though the property in question may stand excluded from consideration in the light of the provisions contained in Order XXXIII of the Civil Procedure Code, the conduct of the petitioner/appellant in executing the document in favour of his minor son is improper and will disentitle him to institute this appeal as an indigent. In this connection, it has to be noticed that, if with a view to get advantage of the provisions contained in Order XXXIII of the C.P.C, if properties belonging to the appellant are actually disposed of during the pendency of the proceedings, possibly that is a matter which may show his improper conduct. But the property now transferred is the subject matter of the suit. So this property is to be excluded from any consideration. Hence, the fact that he had C.M.C.(P).No.63/2004 in Unnumbered R.F.A -: 2 :- executed the deed subsequently in no way could be a ground to deny him the benefit of the benevolent provision, if he is otherwise entitled to. In the absence of any other income or property shown to be possessed by the petitioner we allow this petition. Number the R.F.A and post for admission. P.R.RAMAN, Judge V.K.MOHANAN, Judge ms