High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2022-06-29Appeal disposed; the appellant’s indigence clai...

GIRIJA v. KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHERS

Case / Petition Number:FAO NO. 94 OF 2020

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P. Somarajan
Judgment Date: 2022-06-29
Court Decision / Holding: The appeal is disposed of with the following directions: the appeal is dismissed, but the appellant is given time up to 14 July 2022 to pay the balance court fee. If the fee is paid within that period, the issue of bar under Section 72 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act shall be treated as a preliminary issue and the trial court shall dispose of the matter within three months. If the fee is not paid within the specified period, the petition/appeal shall be dismissed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. No costs. The decision confirms the trial court’s reliance on the Mathai M. Paikedy doctrine and rejects interference with that position; the matter proceeds upon payment of the fee as directed, with broader consequences for the bar under the Revenue Recovery Act.
Final Disposition: Appeal disposed; the appellant’s indigence claim partially allowed by granting time to pay the balance court fee; If paid, the bar under Section 72 to be considered as a preliminary issue; otherwise, the appeal stands dismissed; No costs.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Grija

Respondents

Kerala State Financial Enterprises Private Limited
Branch Manager, Kerala State Financial Enterprises Private Limited, Thrissur 3rd Branch, Municipal Shopping Complex, Patturaikkal, Thrissur District 680 022
P.K. Karunakaran
Sasidharan
Deputy Tahasildar, KSFE, Thrissur District 680 020
State of Kerala, represented by District Collector, Collectorate, Ayyanthole, Thrissur District 680 003

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sree Devi Kylasanath
• Sri. Achuth Kylasan
• Sri. R. Mahesh Menon
• Sri. Deago John K
• Shri. Amal Dev C.V.

Counsels for Respondents

• Shri. Salil Narayanan K.A., SC, KSFE Ltd.
• Sri S. Renjith for R3
• Sri A.J. Abhilash for R3
• Government Pleader for R5 and R6

Case Synopsis & Summary

Grija, the appellant, filed FAO No. 94 of 2020 challenging an order in I.A. No. 22988 of 2016 in POP No. 49/2016 of the Principal Munsiff Court, Thrissur, concerning a revenue recovery proceeding. The indigent application to waive court fee initially was dismissed by the trial court on the ground that the plaintiff had means to pay Rs. 75,933. On remand, the application was again dismissed, this time relying on the legal position laid down in Mathai M. Paikedy v. C.K. Antony (AIR 2011 SC 3221). The appellant contends she is indigent, though her husband is financially well off, and points to assets she claims ownership of or access to, including gold ornaments, a locker, two bank accounts, and a building held in her husband’s name; she argues incomplete disclosure of her financial position, and that the court should not rely solely on the cited Supreme Court precedent to justify denial of pauper status. The respondents contend that the appellant’s schedule of assets is incomplete and that she is not indigent; evidence shows outstanding bank balances and a loan in her name. The appellate court finds material suppression of facts and a non-exhaustive property schedule, but upholds the trial court’s reliance on the Mathai doctrine, while granting time to pay the balance court fee and directing that, if paid, the bar under Section 72 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act be considered as a preliminary issue. The appeal is to stand dismissed with no costs, unless payment is made within the specified period, in which case further proceedings follow.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 72 of Kerala Revenue Recovery ActOrder VII Rule 11, Civil Procedure Code (CPC)

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Mathai M. Paikedy v. C.K. Antony (AIR 2011 SC 3221)
Misuse of court proceedings will not be permitted to stall or defeat legitimate proceedings

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant contends that she is indigent and should be exempted from court fee, arguing that a blanket assessment of financial capacity based purely on assets owned by her husband is unjust. She submits that her assets include bank accounts and a locker; she had gold ornaments allegedly taken by her husband, but no documentary proof was offered to disprove hardship in maintaining daily subsistence and legal costs. Her pleadings illustrate that a substantial portion of the schedule of properties was withheld or not fully disclosed, undermining the trial court’s assessment. She contends that revenue proceedings cannot be used to coerce payment by depriving due process by misusing indigent status. The appellant maintains that the reliance on Mathai M. Paikedy v. C.K. Antony (AIR 2011 SC 3221) should be reconsidered in light of the full material facts and the need to protect the indigent when genuine hardship exists.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents assert that the appellant’s financial position is not indigent given the resources allegedly available to her family, including two cars and a residence held by her husband, and possible movable and immovable assets. They point to Ext. B1 bank extracts showing balances and a loan application, implying capacity to pay court fees. They also allege suppression and incompleteness in the asset schedule, including undisclosed bank accounts and a locker with unknown contents, casting doubt on the veracity of indigence claims. They argue the indigent application has been misused to stall revenue recovery and prolonged litigation, demonstrating deliberate delaying tactics. The respondents urge the court to affirm the trial court’s decision and to deny the waiver of court fees, while keeping in mind that any bar under Section 72 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act may be a proper preliminary issue if the fee is paid later."},

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Mathai M. Paikedy v. C.K. Antony	AIR 2011 SC 3221	Positive	The appellate court relies on the Mathai doctrine to uphold the trial court’s approach to indignant status and the assessment of financial capacity, indicating an adherence to that precedent.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against GIRIJA v. KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHERS and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN`** ``` WEDNESDAY, THE 29[TH] DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 8TH ASHADHA, 1944 ``` ``` FAO NO. 94 OF 2020 ``` ``` AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 26.08.2020 IN I.A. NO.22988 OF 2016 IN POP 49/2016 OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT,THRISSUR ``` ## **`APPELLANT/PETITIONER:`** ``` GIRIJA AGED 56 YEARS W/O. PULIKKAL SASIDHARAN, THOTTIPPAL VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THOTTIPPAL P.O. THRISSUR DISTRICT 680 310. BY ADVS. SREEDEVI KYLASANATH SRI.ACHUTH KYLAS SRI.R.MAHESH MENON SRI.DEAGO JOHN K SHRI.AMAL DEV C.V. ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:`** ``` 1KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, REG. OFFICE AT BHADRATHA, P.B. NO. 510, MUSEUM ROAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT 680 020. 2BRANCH MANAGER, KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, THRISSUR 3RD BRANCH, MUNICIPAL SHOPPING COMPLEX, PATTURAIKKAL, THIRUVAMBADI P.O. THRISSUR DISTRICT 680 022. 3P.K. KARUNAKARAN, AGED 67 YEARS S/O. KUMARAN, PULIKKAL VEEDU, THOTTIPPAL VILLAGE, MULANGU DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, NOW AT M/S. BIMAL ENGINEERING, KOKKALAI, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 4SASIDHARAN, AGED 61 YEARS S/O. DAMODARAN, PULIKKAL VEEDU, THOTTIPPAL VILLAGE AND ``` ``` 2 ``` ``` FAO NO. 94 OF 2020 ``` ``` DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. ``` ``` 5DEPUTY THAHASILDAR, RR. 5, KSFE, THRISSUR DISTRICT 680 020. 6STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR COLLECTORATE, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR DISTRICT 680 003. BY ADVS. SHRI.SALIL NARAYANAN K.A., SC, KSFE LTD. SRI.S.RENJITH FOR R3 SRI.A.J.ABHILASH FOR R3 GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R5 AND R6 ``` ``` THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` FAO NO. 94 OF 2020 ``` ``` 3 ``` ## **`JUDGMENT`** ``` An indigent application was dismissed by the trial court finding that the plaintiff has means to pay the court fee which comes to RS.75,933/-, against which she came up with an appeal. The order of the court below was set aside so as to enable her to adduce further evidence. After the remand, once again the application was dismissed by the trial court by relying on the legal position settled in ``` ``` Mathai M.Paikedy v. C.K.Antony (AIR 2011 SC ``` ``` 3221). She is having two cars though stands in the name of her husband. She did not have a case that she is residing away from her husband or there is a strained relationship between them. She is residing along with her ``` ``` FAO NO. 94 OF 2020 ``` ``` 4 ``` ``` husband who is a financially sound person which ``` ``` is evident from the fact that he owns two cars. She is a resident of a double storied ``` ``` building which stands in the name of her husband. He is also the owner of several ``` ``` properties, both movable and immovable. ``` ``` Hence, the reliance placed by the trial court ``` ``` on the legal position settled by the Apex ``` ``` Court in Mathai's case (supra) deserves no interference. ``` ``` 2.It was revealed during the examination ``` ``` of PW1 that the schedule submitted by her as that of her property and source of income is incomplete as there are material suppression of facts. It is admitted by her that she was ``` ``` maintaining a locker facility and two bank accounts with a bank. It is not disclosed why she was maintaining a locker in a bank and ``` ``` FAO NO. 94 OF 2020 ``` ``` 5 ``` ``` what are the materials kept in that locker. ``` ``` It assumes importance when it is contended by the opposite party that she was having gold ornaments and sufficient funds to pay the court ``` ``` fee. In fact, it is an admitted case that she has gold ornaments, but advanced a case that it was taken away by her husband, for which also, no evidence was tendered, except ``` ``` her interested version. Admittedly, no action ``` ``` was taken at any point of time against her husband. ``` **==> picture [359 x 12] intentionally omitted <==** ``` immovable property having an extent of 90 cents, there are 20 coconut trees besides 500 ``` ``` plantain cultivation, but advanced a case that ``` ``` it was planted by the Kudumbasree unit, in ``` ``` which she was also a member, for which also no satisfactory evidence, except her interested ``` ``` FAO NO. 94 OF 2020 ``` **==> picture [8 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** ``` version was adduced. ``` ``` 4.Going by Ext.B1 document, the extract of bank account of PW1 with Dhanalakshmi Bank, ``` ``` it is clear that during the relevant time i.e. ``` ``` on 1/8/2016 and 28/7/2017, an amount of Rs.1,80,000/-andRs.1,96,004/-were ``` ``` outstanding in her name. It is proved through RW1 Manager. Further, the loan application as evident from Ext.X1 dated 1/8/2016 would ``` ``` further show that she had availed a loan on ``` ``` that day. The version given by her that it was for PW3 by itself would show what is ``` ``` behind it. ``` ``` 5.At this juncture, it is relevant to ``` ``` consider the attempt of the plaintiff to file a suit of this nature in order to stall the revenue recovery proceedings initiated against her and she rushed to the court on getting ``` ``` FAO NO. 94 OF 2020 ``` ``` 7 ``` ``` notice from the concerned village officer and opted to file this suit, though the suit is ``` ``` barred under Section 72 of the Kerala Revenue ``` ``` Recovery Act. After the amendment to the ``` ``` section, there is a complete bar in ``` ``` entertaining a suit of this nature and now ``` ``` under the guise of an indigent application, ``` ``` she had successfully delayed the revenue ``` ``` recovery proceedings for a long period of six ``` ``` years and the adjudication of the suit. This ``` ``` kind of malpractice by misusing the court ``` ``` proceedings shall not be permitted to continue ``` ``` even for a moment. The nature of the ``` ``` application and the appeals filed on two ``` ``` occasions would sufficiently show the delaying ``` ``` tactics successfully played by the plaintiff ``` ``` before the trial court and also before this ``` ``` court. This is illustrative of misuse of the ``` ``` FAO NO. 94 OF 2020 ``` ``` 8 ``` ``` machinery by an unscrupulous litigant. Hence, ``` ``` while confirming the order of the trial court, time is granted upto 14/07/2022 to pay the balance court fee payable. In the event of ``` ``` non-payment of court fee within that time, the plaint shall be returned under Order VII Rule ``` ``` 11 C.P.C. In the event of payment of court ``` ``` fee, the issue of bar under Section 72 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act shall be taken as a preliminary issue and the trial court shall dispose of the matter within a time schedule of three months from that day. ``` ``` Theappealwillstanddismissed ``` ``` accordingly. No costs. ``` ## **Sd/-** ## **`P.SOMARAJAN`** ## **`JUDGE`** ``` SPV ```