JUDGMENT
Panigrahi, J.
1. This revision is directed against the order of the Munsif, Second Court Cuttack, refusing to permit the petitioner to sue in forma pauperis.
2. The petitioners filed a suit for possession of their hereditary marfatdari in respect of a certain deity. The plaintiffs paid court-fees in the first instance when the suit was valued at Rs. 411. On objection being taken by the defendants the learned Munsif ordered the valuation of the suit, for the purpose of Court-fee, to be raised to Rs. 2786. At this stage the plaintiffs filed a petition praying for permission to sue in forma pauperis. On the side of the plaintiffs, plaintiff l was examined as P. W. l and her evidence was to the effect that she is not possessed of any properties, movable or immovable, out of which she could pay the court-fee. She however admitted that up to the stage of filing her petition her husband was financing the suit. Defendant 1 was examined as O. P. W. 1 and he deposed that the petitioner had some gold and silver ornaments worth Rs. 400. The learned Munsif has indulged in a lot of speculation, about the status of the petitioner while trying to
determine her ability to pay court-fee. In the first place the fact that the order about revaluation of the suit was taken to the High Court in revision is urged as a ground indicating the affluent circumstances of the petitioner. In view of the petitioner’s evidence that her husband was looking after the litigation this point loses all significance. The husband’s property cannot be the basis for determining the status of the petitioner. The second reason given by the learned Munsif is equally fallacious. He says that the petitioner made no attempt to raise any money on the strength of the properties left by her father, Bhikary Panda. The suit properties are the only properties left by her father. These properties being admittedly Devottar the petitioner could not raise any money on the pledge or mortgage of these Devottar properties. The third reason put forward is that the petitioner must have been given ornaments and utensils at the time of her marriage as dowry as it is usual for girls to be given such presents. The learned Munsif had relied upon the evidence of O. P.w. 1 for the statement that the petitioner has ornaments worth Rs. 400. This after all is the interested statement of a party to the litigation and is contradicted by the evidence of the petitioner herself. But even accepting the evidence of O. P.w. 1 at its face value it cannot be said that these ornaments are such as can be parted with by a Hindu woman, who has her husband alive. These ornaments are worn daily and as such constitute the wearing apparel of a Brahmin Hindu woman.
3. In these circumstances we are not satisfied that the finding of the learned Munsif has been arrived at properly on the evidence recorded in the case. The order of the Munsif is set aside. This revision is allowed and the petitioner is permitted to sue in forma pauperis.Therewill be no order as to costs.
Narasimham, J.
4. I agrees.
