JUDGMENT This revision application arises out of an order passed by the District Judge, Jhabua, holding that the plaintiff-applicant is not entitled to exemption under the State Government Notification, exempting female plaintiffs with annual income not exceeding Rs. 6,000/- per annum from payment of Court fees. After assessing the evidence on record, the learned District Judge has found that the plaintiff did have annual income exceeding Rs. 6,000/- p.a. This finding is under challenge in this revision application. Shri B.L. Pavecha, the learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the plaintiff has stated on oath that her income did not exceed Rs. 6,000/- p.a. This· statement on oath has not been contradicted effectively by any material placed on record and the plaintiff being in the best know of her income, in the absence of any specific evidence to the contrary, her statement was the only legal evidence available to decide whether she had income exceeding Rs. 6,000/- or not. Shri Waghamare, the learned counsel for the non-applicants, on the other hand submitted that it is pure finding of fact based on assessment of material on record and there is no jurisdictional error involved in the case, which may empower this Court to interfere. On the point of her income Sampatbai has examined herself and her son Babulal. She has admitted to be the owner of a house from which she is deriving Rs. 200/- per month as rental income. She has admitted to be living with her husband and son. She admits that the house belonging to her is worth about 3-4 lacs. She also admits to have sold a portion of the house. Her son has stated that the two rooms sold by Sampatbai in April, 1987, fetched Rs. 2 lacs. The non-applicants have also tried to give some evidence about the income of Sampatbai. But even ignoring that if on the evidence given by Sampatbai the, trial Court has inferred that her income is exceeding Rs. 6,000/-. No fault can be found with it. After-all income of a particular person has to be assessed on the basis of the over-all circumstances. If a lady living with her husband and son is shown to be owning a house worth Rs. 4 lacs, a portion of which has been sold by her at Rs. 2 lacs and she is still realising the rent of Rs. After-all income of a particular person has to be assessed on the basis of the over-all circumstances. If a lady living with her husband and son is shown to be owning a house worth Rs. 4 lacs, a portion of which has been sold by her at Rs. 2 lacs and she is still realising the rent of Rs. 200/- per month, from a tenant in the house, it cannot be said that the assessment of her income to be exceeding Rs. 6,000/- per annum by the trial Court is without any foundation in evidence. In such matters when the plaintiff herself is in possession of the best evidence of her income and she is interested in showing it below Rs. 6,000/- p.a., the Court has to be circumspect and cautious and cannot accept the ipse dixit of the plaintiff alone. It has to look to the other circumstances and come to a conclusion. The trial Court has just done that and no fault can be found with the approach it has adopted to the case. There is no force in this revision application. It is dismissed as such. There shall, however, be no orders as to costs.