076-NLR-NLR-V-07-HINNIAPPU-v.-HENDRIS.pdf
1904.
June 24.
( 326 )
HINNIAPPU v. HENDBIS.D. G., GaUe, 7,354.
Leave to eve in formA pauperis—Subject-matter o) the action—Civil ProcedureCode, S3. 441, 447.
When an applicant seeks to sue in formd pauperis for a share of land,and a proctor has certified, under section 447 of the Civil ProcedureCode, that he has a good cause of action, it is, nevertheless, open to therespondent, when-the question of pauperism comesbefore the Court
under that section, to prove that the applicant’s title to part, of the shareclaimed has notbeen contested,butis purposelymisrepresented as
contested; and ifthe Court find;,thatthe applicant'sright to a part,
worth £s. 50 or more of his claim has not been contested or disturbed,it has power to refuse to allow the applicant to sue as a pauper.
* The applicant’sstatement of whatforms the subject-matter of the
action i6 not binding on the Court.
HE applicant asserted title to three-sixths of a land worth
X Bs. 1,000, and applied to be allowed to sue as a pauper on the'ground that such share formed his only property, and that therespondents disputed his title to, and had ousted him from,the whole of it. The respondents, in showing cause under section447,. admitted .that the applicant was entitled to one-sixth of theland, and alleged and proved that they had not contested hisright to that one-sixth or disturbed his possession of it. Theapplicant offered no evidence in rebuttal, but relied on theobjection that it was not open to the Court to go behind thecertificate of the proctor who had certified that the applicant hada good cause of action in respect of the three-sixths claimed.
The District Judge held that it was open to him to inquire intothe issue raised by the respondents, whether the applicant wasnot purposely misrepresenting that one-sixth share, Bs. 166 invalue, had been contested by the respondents. He decided inrespondent’s favour, and refused leave to sue in forma pauperis.
The applicant appealed.
W. Jayawardene, for appellant.—The Court had no right to gobehind the proctor’s certificate that the applicant had a good causeof action in respect of the tbree-sixt{js claimed. It had decidedsummarily one of the issues which would arise at the trial. It wasnot open to the respondents to^sav that the subjeot-matter of theaction was different from what the applicant said it was.
H. A. Jayawardene, fon respondent.
«
24th June, 1904. Mujdleton, J.—
I see no reason to interfere wit}} the order of the Court below.It. must be affirmed.
Sampayo, A.J.—I agree.
T