JUDGMENT K.C. Agarwal, J. - This appeal under Order XLLII Rule 1 (na) of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the Code) has been preferred against the judgment of the Civil Judge, Agra dated 2nd August, 1983 by which an application made by the appellant under Order 33 Rule 1 of the Code has been rejected. 2. The appellant filed case No. 27 of 1978 against , his father Sardar Jeewan Singh and other members of his family for partition of his share in the joint family property, alleging that the property belong to the joint family and being a member of joint family he was entitle to ? share, valuation of which comes to Rs. 4,65000/- . The suit was filed along with an application for permission to file it as an indigent person. The application was allowed by the Civil Judge 14-11-1980 with the finding that the notices of the application were issued to the D.G.C. (Civil) as also to the defendants impleaded in the suit. After aforesaid order dated 14-11-1980 was passed the defendants moved an application for recalling of the order dated 14-11-1980 on the ground that the plaintiff was possessed of sufficient property to pay the court fee on the plaint. The application was opposed by the applicant interalia on the ground that the review by the defendants was not maintainable. It was further contended that the valuation of the suit on which the court fee was payable was Rs. 15,407.50 p. and that he was not possessed of any movable and immovable property from which he could pay the court fee on the aforesaid amount. 3. Civil Judge held that the plaintiff/applicant was in a position to pay the court fee and rejected the application for permission to file the suit as indigent person. As against this order present appeal under the provision aforesaid has been filed. 4. Explanation I to Order 33 Rule 1 lays down as to who is indigent person. According to this explanation if a person is not possessed of sufficient means (other than property exempt from attachment in execution of a decree and the subject-matter of the suit) to enable him to pay the fee prescribed by law for the plaint in such suit. 5. Court below took into account the fact that the appellant had taken a loan in the year 1971 for a sum of Rs. 5. Court below took into account the fact that the appellant had taken a loan in the year 1971 for a sum of Rs. 14,500/- and as such out of the loan amount he could pay court fee on the plaint. We have gone through the judgment and also heard appellant who appeared in person. One of the reasons which appealed to the court below for rejecting the application of the appellant seeking permission to file the suit as indigent person was that his wife had been presented with ornaments, valuation of which was much more than what was required as court fee. In our view there was no evidence to come to that conclusion and the same appears to us ipsi dixit for the court below. Furthermore even if any ornament was presented to his wife it was stridhan and the husband had no right over the same, consequently the same would not be taken into account for the purpose of finding that the appellant was in a position to pay the court fee by selling the same. 6. Second aspect of the matter which appealed to the court below was that since the appellant had taken loan in the year 1971, the same should be treated to be the amount still laying with the appellant. For this finding there is no justification even if it was conceded that the appellant had taken loan in the year 1971 that could not be treated as a ground for finding that the appellant could pay court fee on the plaint. There was no evidence before the court below to reject the application of the appellant. The finding of the court below that the appellant had concealed material facts that were required to be stated under Order 33 Rule I of the Code, therefore, is not tenable. The judgment of the court below is set aside and