AMILINENI RADHAKRISHNA Vs. AMILINENI KONDAPPA
LAWS(APH)-1963-12-9
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on December 13,1963

AMILINENI RADHAKRISHNA Appellant
VERSUS
AMILINENI, KONDAPPA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) This is a petition seeking to revise an Order of the District Judge, Anantapur, rejecting an application by the petitioners for permission to file a suit for partition as paupers.
(2.) The Petitioners, five in number, are the sons of one Amilineni Venkataswamy. The said Venkataswamy is the son of one Amilineni Kondappa by his first wife. Kondappa had three sons by his second wife : Venkata Narayana, Venkata Ramana and Venugopal. The petitioners are suing for their share of the family properties. Their grandfather, father and paternal uncles and the alienees of certain items of properties are respondents to the said application. They alleged that their grandfather had excluded them and their father from the possession and enjoyment of the family properties from 1950 or thereabouts and that they were refused their legitimate share. They are therefore suing for partition and separate possession of their shares.
(3.) The learned District Judge found that the petitioners were paupers, but rejected their application on the ground that they filed the application at the instance of their father, that their father is in a position to pay the court-fee and that the application is not bona fide. It is urged in revision that that is not one of the grounds on which the petitioner's application could be rejected under Order 33, rule 7, Civil Procedure Code. Order 33, rule 5, Civil Procedure Code, sets out the grounds for rejection of an application for permission to sue as a pauper. The said rule provides thus : Order 33, rule 5.-" The Court shall reject an application for permission to sue as a pauper- (a) where it is not framed and presented in the manner prescribed by rules 2 and 3, or (4) where the applicant is not a pauper, or (c) where he has, within two months next before the presentation of the application, disposed of any property fraudulently or in order to be able to apply for permission to sue as a pauper, or (d) where the allegations do not show a cause of action, or (d-1) where the suit appears to be barred by any law, or (e) where he has entered into any agreement with reference to the subject-matter of the proposed suit under which any other person has obtained an interest in such subject-matter.";


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.