Judgment :- The petitioner in O.P. 63 of 1983 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Tanjore has filed this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against the order in O.P. 63 of 2983 in which the learned Subordinate Judge, has dismissed the petition to sue in forma pauperis under O. 33, R. 5 of Civil Procedure Code. 2. Short facts leading for this appeal are: The petitioner had filed the suit for declaration of title and injunction in respect of A Scheduled Property, recovery of possession of B Schedule property and for accounting and for damages. The total court fee payable is Rs. 6,158.75/- On the allegation that the petitioner is an indigent person unable to pay the court fee, he has filed the petition. It was resisted by the respondents. The first respondent has stated in his counter that the petitioner has suppressed his daily income of Rs. 10/-and that he has got paddy bags, jewels and properties. The second respondent also disputes the claim that he has got no means to pay court fee. After enquiry, the learned Subordinate Judge, Tanjore, had dismissed the petition on the ground that the petitioner has suppressed the fact that he was earning Rs. 150/- per month in his job as paddy broker and that amounted to mala fides . He had relied upon the ruling Rajakumar Bhawalsaran v. V.P.V. Rajan 1971 (1) M.L.J. 51O for holding that suppression of fact would amount to lack of good faith, and on the score the petition praying for permission to sue in forma pauperis should be dismissed. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has come forward with this appeal. 3. Mr. S. Parthasarathy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that there was no suppression of any material fact though he failed to specifically state in the petition that he was getting Rs. 150/- by way of brokerage per month and it cannot be construed as showing want of good faith and on facts the ruling relied upon by the learned Subordinate Judge is not applicable to the facts of the case. He would further contend that after the amendment of O. 33 R. 5(c), by inserting a Proviso, now such consideration should not be taken. Per contra, Mr. He would further contend that after the amendment of O. 33 R. 5(c), by inserting a Proviso, now such consideration should not be taken. Per contra, Mr. K.A. Ravindran, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that utmost good faith is required on the part of the petitioner while he seeks to sue in forma pauperis . That is clearly lacking in this case. Further, he would contend that the suit is for declaration that the petitioner/plaintiff is the absolute owner of the property mentioned in schedule A and for consequently injunction which would imply that he is in possession of A schedule property and he can as well raise funds on the security of the property and pay the court fee. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel. 4. To consider the question whether there was any suppression of fact so as to amount to want of good faith, para 14 of the plaint needs extraction. It reads as follows: “14. The petitioner/plaintiff is an indigent person. He has no means to pay the court fee payable on the plaint. He has no other properties than those mentioned in Schedule C hereunder. He has not alienated any property within 3 months nor has he entered into any agreement with any one relating to the subject matter under which any person other than the petitioner/plaintiff has any interest in or over the suit properties. As such he has to be permitted to sue as an indigent person.” In evidence, the Petitioner has stated in cross-examination that he is a paddy broker and getting out Rs. 100/- to Rs. 150 per month that he is paying Rs. 50/- or Rs. 100/- per month in the Court at Thiruvaiyaru. He has to sustain himself from this earning. That would show that he is an indigent person. In para 4 of the plaint which I have extracted above, it is stated that he is an indigent person son. On the averments made in the petition which I have referred to supra, it cannot be stated that he had suppressed materials course of income so as to consider it as a deliberate invention on his part to suppress some relevant factor. So, it cannot be stated that there was any want of good faith on his part. I am unable to accept the further contention of Mr. So, it cannot be stated that there was any want of good faith on his part. I am unable to accept the further contention of Mr. K.A. Ravindran that the petitioner can raise funds on the security of A Schedule property which according to him is in his possession. The petitioner had prayed for declaration of title and injunction in respect A Schedule property. It is not as if the defendant has admitted the title to the plaintiff which alone would enable him to take such a course. Written statement is yet to be filed. We do not know the stand that will be taken by the defendant, while so, it is premature to say that the petitioner can raise funds on the strength of the property described in A schedule properties. These two contentions which are put forth by Mr. K.A. Ravindran do not find acceptance before me. When they fall on the way side, the only thing that remains is that the petitioner is not possessed of landed property apart from the property covered by the suit and there is nothing on record to show that he had any cash to enable him to pay the court fee of Rs. 6,158.75. As such he should have been permitted to sue in forma pauperis . It is apparent that the finding of the Court below is clearly erroneous. Since on facts, I have given this finding, it is necessary for me to go into the applicability of the ruling reported in Rajakumar Bhagwatsaran v. V.P.V. Rajan 1971 (1) M.L.J. 510 or the ruling in Murugan v. Sivaraman (195) 2 M.L.J. 638 and the consequence of the amendment by inserting Proviso to Order 33, Rule 5(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure. 5. In the result the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed setting side the order of the Court below in O.P. No. 63 of 1983. O.P. No. of 63 of 1983 shall stand allowed. The learned Subordinate Judge shall register it as a suit and proceed with it. Appeal is allowed as indicated above. No costs.