Judgment :- The 7th counter petitioner in O.P. (Pauper) No.31/80 on the files of the Sub Judge, Quilon is the revision petitioner. The order under challenge is one by which the court below has 'allowed the application aforesaid. 2. The main reliefs prayed for in the petition reads:- The documents which are sought to be set aside, it is said, are documents executed by defendants 8 and 9 in violation of the provisions contained in sub-sec.2 of S.8 of The Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956. According to the first respondent she became major on 11-5-1977 and since the suit was filed within three years from that date the same cannot be said to be barred by limitation. On the other hand the petitioner as also the other contesting respondents contended that the suit to set aside the documents was barred by limitation as the same was filed after three years of the first respondent becoming major. 3. Considering the competing contentions, the court below has found as follows:- "The date of birth of the petitioner as per Ext.Bl births and death register is 17-7-1958. She ought to have filed the suit within three years of her attaining majority. The suit filed on 19-4-1980 is therefore barred by limitation. According to the petitioner as per Ext.A1, the S. S.L.C. Book, her date of birth is 11-5-1959. Therefore the suit filed on 19-4-1980 is in time. The suit is not barred by limitation. This case of the petitioner cannot be accepted. It is well settled proposition that the register of births and deaths has to be preferred to the S.S.L.C. Book. So the date of birth as evidenced by the former has to be taken to be the correct one. The date of birth as per Ext.B1 is 17-7-1958. This has to be taken as the correct date of birth of the petitioner. She became major on 17-7-1976. The suit ought to have been filed on or before 17-7-1979". While considering the main issue the court below however, has proceeded as if the suit is one for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule properties after avoiding the documents. The court accordingly found that there was no necessity to have the transactions set aside. In otherwords a suit for recovery of possession avoiding the transaction is maintainable. While considering the main issue the court below however, has proceeded as if the suit is one for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule properties after avoiding the documents. The court accordingly found that there was no necessity to have the transactions set aside. In otherwords a suit for recovery of possession avoiding the transaction is maintainable. If that be so, it was further held, Articles 59 or 60 of The Limitation Act is not attracted. On the other hand the period of limitation is 12 years under Article 65. 4. The question as to whether a person is entitled to file a suit as an indigent person requires to be decided taking into account the pleadings contained in the plaint. Going by the pleadings it cannot be said that this is a suit for possession within the meaning of either Article 64 or Article 65. To say that a suit for possession falls under these articles, it must be one in which possession is asked for as a primary relief. The positive, specific, candid case set up by the first respondent is that the documents require to be set aside and that is why the first respondent has made a specific prayer therefor. The relief for recovery of possession under the circumstances is only a consequential relief. If that be the position a suit to set aside the documents perhaps may have to be filed within three years, going by the provisions contained in Article 60 of The Limitation Act. In any event, going by the pleadings as also the findings entered by the court below, the suit appears to be barred by the Law of Limitation. If the suit appears to be barred by any law, then the court is bound to reject the application for permission to sue as an indigent person. (See Order 33 Rule 5(d) (dl) Kerala Amendment). The word 'appears' employed in the clause would indicate that the enquiry as to whether the claim is barred by any law shall be a limited one. The court while considering the application for permission to sue as an indigent person therefore shall not enter a positive finding regarding the question whether the suit is barred by any law, like law of limitation etc. The court while considering the application for permission to sue as an indigent person therefore shall not enter a positive finding regarding the question whether the suit is barred by any law, like law of limitation etc. The question as to whether a party shall file a suit to set aside the document in a case where the document is executed in violation of S.8(2) does not arise for consideration in this application, the reason being, no such case has been pleaded by the party. 5. The petition under Order 33, under the circumstances mentioned above, requires to be rejected. I accordingly reject the same. The order under challenge therefore is set aside. The court below shall pass appropriate consequential orders under Order 33 Rule 15-a. C.R.P. is allowed.