S. Ranganathan, J. ( 1 ) IN IPA 21/84 the plaintiff sought permission to institute the suit as an indigent person. By the order dated 26th September. 1984 an enquiry into the matter by the Registrar was directed. The Registrar after giving notice to the Delhi Administration as well as to the defendant decided the application on 3rd May, 1985 expressing the opinion that the petitioner is an indigent person and is not in a position to pay the requisite court fee. This conclusion was arrived at by the Registrar exparte because en the date on whi ch the matter was heard there was no appearance For the defendant. She was also under the impression that no reply had been filed to the plaintiff s application though in fact a reply had been filed on 10th April, 1985. The Registrar purported to decide IPA 21/84 accordingly. This came before the Court on 13th May. 1985 when the learned Judge acting upon the report of the Registrar directed the suit to be registered and the defendant to be summoned. ( 2 ) WHEN this defendant appeared he filed I. A. 3297/85 slating that he did not appear before the Registrar on 29th April, 1985 due to a borafide mistake and also praying that the order of the Registrar dated 3rd May, 1985 in IPA 21/84 should beset aside. Strictly speaking, IPA 21/84 could have been decided only by the Court on the terms of order 33 rule I A and the Register s decision was only a report submitted to the Court that the plea of the plaintiff could be accepted. In view of this notice of the present application, I A. 3297/85 was given to the plaintiff and further proceedings taken. When the matter came up before the court after notice a statement by the plaintf was recorded. A witness from the Municipal Corporation of Delhi was examed on 29th July. 1985 The plaintiff was thereafter permitted to produce affidavit evidence and his affidavit was taken on record on 23rd August, 1985. The defendant was allowed to cross examine the plaintiff I on the affidavit of 23rd August, 1985. The evidence of the defendant was recorded on 25th September, 1985 and the matter now comes up for final decision. 1985 The plaintiff was thereafter permitted to produce affidavit evidence and his affidavit was taken on record on 23rd August, 1985. The defendant was allowed to cross examine the plaintiff I on the affidavit of 23rd August, 1985. The evidence of the defendant was recorded on 25th September, 1985 and the matter now comes up for final decision. At this stage there is no appearance on behalf of the plaintiff I, therefore, dispose of the application after hearing counsel for the defendant. ( 3 ) THE defendant s contention is that the plaintiff is not an indigent person for two reasons. The first is that the plaintiff is admittedly a co-owner having a share in a property bearing No. 8/10, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi. The plaintiff admits that he has I/4th share in the house the value of which is estimated at Rs. 75. 000. 00. The second ground of objection take on behalf of the defendant is that the plaintiff is the owner of a house bearing No. WZI, Hind Nagar, New Delhi. ( 4 ) IT appears to me that both these contentions are well founded. So far as the first is concerned, as I have already mentioned, the plaintiff himself admits that he has I/4th share in the property at Tilak Nagar. No reasons are adduced as to why or how the plaintiff will not be in a position to raise any monies by the mortgage or sale of the said share. Counsel for the defendant has brought to my notice the following decisions, namely, Prem Kumar and others v. Lalo Girdhari Lal and others (AIR 1940 Oudh 208) ; Rojinder Singh and others v. Karnal Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. , Karnal and others (AIR 1965 Pun. 331) ; and Harisingh Isharsingh v. Chandansingh Pratapsingh and another (AIR 1968 Born. 380) in support of his proposition that the possession of property cannot be ignored for purpose of order 33 merely because it is a property held by the plaintiff as co-owner with others. There is, therefore, substance in the contention urged on behalf of the defendant that the plaintiff cannot be said to be an indigent person so long as he has a share in this property and there are means by which he can raise funds against the property. There is, therefore, substance in the contention urged on behalf of the defendant that the plaintiff cannot be said to be an indigent person so long as he has a share in this property and there are means by which he can raise funds against the property. ( 5 ) IN regard to the property No. WZI, Hind Nagar, New Delhi, the plaintiff admits that the property once belonged to him. His statement before the Court on 8th July, 1985 was that he had sold the house at about 20 years back to one Smt. Jaswant Kaur for about Rs. 3. 000. 00. Actually, as pointed out by the counsel for the defendant, this was not a correct statement. The plaintiff has subsequently produced the certified copy of a sale deed dated 15-2-1972 in favour of Smt. Jaswant Kaur for Rs. 1. 000. 00. Smt. Jaswant Kaur is a close relative of the plaintiff. A perusal of the certified copy of the registered sale deed shows only that the plot was sold under the document in question. The property covered by the sale deed is plot No. 3, Khasra No. 12/19 and there is nothing to show that this sale deed relates to that plot on which the present house is situated. But even assuming that the sale deed pertains to that plot, counsel for the defendant submits, there is evidence to show that the sale deed was not acted upon. He primarily relies upon the documents which have been exhibited DW I/i to DW 1/3. as late as 9th May. 1984 Khazan Singh (husband of Smt. Jaswant Kaur) applied for an electric connection to property No. WZ I, Hind Nagar, New Delhi (First Floor ). This application is attested by the plaintiff in which be describes himself as owner of WZI, Hind Nagar. New Delhi. Attached to this application is a rent receipt purportedly issued by the plaintiff as the owner to Shri Khazan Singh as the tenant in respect of the above property which is dated 7th March. 1984. There is also an affidavit accompanying the application in which Shri Khazan Singh claims to be a lawful occupier of the property for over 20 years in support of which claim he has filed the above house-rent- receipt. 1984. There is also an affidavit accompanying the application in which Shri Khazan Singh claims to be a lawful occupier of the property for over 20 years in support of which claim he has filed the above house-rent- receipt. In other words, on the strength of these documents, counsel for the defendant submits that even if ostensibly the plaintiff had executed a sale deed in favour of Smt. Jaswant Kaur this was in fact not acted upon by the parties as is clear from the documents on the basis of which electricity connection was sought by Shri Khazan Singh in respect of the property. The defendant hai also pointed out that even the evidence of the record keeper of the Municipal Corporration of Delhi which was recorded on 29th July, 1985 shows that the property continues to be registered for municipal purpose only in the name of Shri Santokh Singh and even as late as 1976 and 1977 it was Shri Santokh Singh who appeared before the municipal authorities in relation to the house tax matters pertaining to the said properts. There is, therefore, evidence to support the contention of the defendant that the sale deed relied upon by the plaintiff has not in fact been acted upon. ( 6 ) IN these circumstances, I do not find that this is a proper case in which the plaintiff can be permitted to sue as an indigent person. The order of the Registrar in IPA 21/s4 is, therefore, set aside and the said application is dismissed. I. A. 3297/85 is allowed,