V.D.Misra, C.J. - (1.)This appeal is directed against the order of a learned single Judge holding that the appellant is not an indigent person and must pay the necessary court- fee.
(2.)The appellant is stated to be a deal and dumb person and incapable of protecting his interests when suing by reason of mental infirmity. The appellant's wife Shrimati Devku filed a suit in forma pauperis on the ground that the appellant was not possessed o? sufficient means to enable him to pay the fee prescribed by law for the plaint. It was averred that the defendant (respondent before us), who is a practising Advocate, filed an application on behalf of a lady representing herself to be Kimtu, daughter of the appellant, for permission to sell or lease the property described in the plaint, This application was stated to have been made under Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act before the District Judge Kulu on 22nd May, 1975. The learned Judge allowed the application on 31st May, 1975. On the basis of this order the defendant got a sale deed executed in his favour on 6th June, 1975 from the said Shrimati Kimtu, The ostensible consideration for the sale of this land was Rs. 48,000/-. A special power of attorney was obtained in favour of one Lotam Dass from Shrimati Kimtu authorising the former to represent the latter at the time of the attestation of the mutation before the revenue officer. The mutation was duly got sanctioned. Shrimati Devku came to know about the fraud played by the defendant. She challenged the order of the District Judge, Kulu, in Civil Revision No. 37 of 1975 and this Court by an order dated 31st Oct., 1979 quashed the order of the District Judge dated 31-5-1975. But the defendant refused to hand back the property. Another allegation made is that the defendant in 1971 in collusion with the appellant's previous wife Shrimati Sobhi got the land belonging to the appellant transferred to himself.
(3.)At the very outset we may record that Mr. Arun Kumar Goel, learned counsel for the defendant-respondent, has seriously contended that the appellant is not a person having any mental infirmity. How this lies in the mouth of the defendant who, as a counsel, moved an application on behalf of said Kimtu under Section 8 of the Hindu Minority, and Guardianship Act and got the land transferred to himself, is not for us to say, Suffice it to note that this is not the matter in issue before us. Moreover, we find that in the reply filed by the defendant there is not even a whisper that the appellant is not suffering from mental infirmity. And we would leave the matter at that.
;