SM MABIA KHATUN Vs. SHEIKH SATKARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Rule arises out of an order of the Subordinate Judge of Burdwan refusing the application of the petitioner to sue as a pauper under Order 33, Civil Procedure Code. The petitioner proposed to sue the opposite party as mutwalli with regard to certain wakf property. The learned Subordinate Judge presumably after taking the preliminary stepa laid down in Rr. 3, 4 and 5, did not reject the application. He issued notices to the opposite party and the Government Pleader and received evidence as to the proof of the pauperism of the applicant. The Government Pleader did not raise any objection as to the pauperism of the applicant. But the application was opposed by the opposite party. The value of the property sued for is over Rs. 9,000 and the ad valorem Court-fee payable on the plaint is said by the Subordinate Judge to amount to Rs. 735. The learned Subordinate Judge has held that the applicant has no property in her possession as mutwalli, but he considers that she has personal property out of which she could pay the Court-fee payable on the plaint and that she should not be allowed to sue as a pauper.

(2.) With regard to the question as to whether she has got any personal property the Subordinate Judge has held that she is entitled to prompt dower from her husband which she has not realized. He considers that her husband is a person capable of paying the dower debt as he has some properties and is in receipt of an allowance of Rs. 41 per month from the Government for looking after preserved monuments. The Subordinate Judge has not come to any finding as to what the amount of the prompt dower is. The Subordinate Judge was, however, of opinion that the amount of the dower, whatever it may be, should be taken into account as part of the means of plaintiff.

(3.) The Subordinate Judge next observes that the ornaments, belonging to the petitioner, have been under-valued. During her examination on commission at her husband's house she was asked to show her ornaments but she would not produce them saying that they were with her husband. Under the circumstances the Subordinate Judge held that the applicant had sufficient means to pay Court-fees on the plaint.