Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shri Manoharlal vs Shri Hiralal on 25 July, 2018
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH; BENCH AT INDORE
Misc. Appeal No.1445 of 2016.
(Manoharlal Kasera and another v/s Heeralal Kasera and others)
Indore, Dated : 25.07.2018:-
Ms. Manisha Parsai, learned counsel for the
appellants.
Shri S.C.Agrawal, learned counsel for the Respondent
Nos.1 and 2.
Heard on the question of admission.
O R D E R THE present appeal is filed by the plaintiffs being aggrieved by the order dated 24.06.2016 by which the learned Trial Court has rejected the application filed under Order XXXIII Rule 1 of CPC read with Section 35 of the Court-fees Act.
[2] The appellant Nos.1 and 2 are real brother and they filed the suit for declaration, permanent injunction and partition of ancestral moveable and immoveable properties. The appellants have valued the suit Rs.2,000-00 for the relief of permanent injunction; Rs.2,000-00 for declaration and valued the suit at Rs.15,30,000-00 and assessed the Court-fees of Rs.1,65,600-00 for the relief of partition of moveable and immoveable ancestral properties. Along with the plaint, the plaintiffs also filed an application under Order XXXIII Rule 1 of CPC read with Section 35 of the Court- fees Act seeking permission to file the suit as indigent persons as they are not in a position to pay ad valorem court-fees. The learned Trial Court has registered the case and directed the Collector to submit the report in respect of the property and income of the plaintiffs.
[3] The defendant No.1 filed the reply by submitting that the plaintiff No.1 is engaged in the business of Property Broker and having handsome income. He is also getting income by way of interest as he has landed the money in the market. The plaintiff No.2 is owner of Auto Rikshaw and is earning Rs.300-00 per day. His son is earning Rs.6,000-00 per month. The wife of plaintiff No.2 is also involved in the business of Property Broker. They have all immunities in their house and capable of paying the court-fees.
[4] The Collector has directed the Tehsildar to submit a report. As per the report, the plaintiff No.1 - Manoharlal is working as a daily wager in travelling company and earning Rs.3,000-00 per month and having own house. The plaintiff No.2 Radheshyam took a loan from the Bank for purchase of Auto Rikshaw and paying the installments and he is also having his own house. The monthly income of Manoharlal is Rs.8,000-00 per month and the monthly income of Radheshyam is Rs.3,000-00 to Rs.5,000-00. They entered into witness box and admitted their houses as well as earning. The learned District Judge found that the income of Radheshyam is Rs.15,000-00 to Rs.16,000-00 and the income of Manoharlal is Rs.15,000-00 to Rs.20,000-00 and they are claiming share in the ancestral moveable and immoveable properties and capable of paying the Court-fees. Therefore, no case for interference is made out in this appeal and the appeal is accordingly dismissed.
[ VIVEK RUSIA ] JUDGE (AKS) Digitally signed by Anl Kumar Sharma Date: 2018.07.28 15:16:31 +05'30'