ORDER: 1. The petitioner has filed mis petition seeking leave to file an appeal as an Indigent person. 2. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, he has stated that the court-fee to be paid in the appeal is Rs.49,500. His properties were attached and he is drawing a sum of Rs.3,540 as a pension per month. He is not possessed with sufficient means. He should be permitted to prefer an appeal as an Indigent person. 3. The first respondent filed an elaborate counter wherein he has stated that me petitioner had received a sum of Rs.1,08,739 towards his retirement benefits. Apart from mis, he also owns immoveable properties consisting of an extent of one acre of fertile land in Komarapalayam village which is irrigated by Kaveri water. He further owns a terraced House. The petitioner is having a coconut grave of 400 coconuts and is receiving an income of Rs.40,000 per year. From other lands, the petitioner is raising cash crops and getting an income of nearly Rs.1,25,400. The petitioner did not disclose any of his income in the affidavit. This petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. The petitioner has chosen, to file a reply affidavit stating that he has received the retirement benefit as roughly Rs.80,000 in the year 1994. The said amount was received on three occasions. Immediately the same was utilised for the purpose of performing his daughter's marriage. So far as the properties are concerned, he has specifically made an averment that all the properties are under attachment in various proceedings. He also denied the income from the coconut grave. 5. Mr.T.Dhanyakumar, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the amount received by way of retirement benefit by the petitioner had been utilised for the marriage of his daughter. So far as the properties are concerned, all the properties are under attachment and he has given all the particulars in the affidavit. 6. Per contra, Mr.P.Mathivanan, learned counsel for the respondent contended that O.33 , Rule 2, C.P.C., requires that the petitioner should file an affidavit containing the schedule of properties as well as the income. So far as the properties are concerned, all the properties are under attachment and he has given all the particulars in the affidavit. 6. Per contra, Mr.P.Mathivanan, learned counsel for the respondent contended that O.33 , Rule 2, C.P.C., requires that the petitioner should file an affidavit containing the schedule of properties as well as the income. O.33 , Rule 5(a) ; enables the court to dismiss the application in case of non-compliance of the requirement of O.33 , Rule 2, C.P.C. In this case, the petitioner has failed to mention about the receipt of the retirement benefits in the affidavit filed in support of the petition. That itself is a sufficient ground to dismiss the petition. Moreover admittedly, the petitioner owns agricultural lands. Though the properties had been attached, the income from the property had not been attached. The petitioner is receiving the same. No details have been furnished by way of schedule to the affidavit regarding the receipt of income derived by the petitioner. 7. On a careful consideration of the argument of the both counsels, I am of the opinion that there is some force in the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent. The petitioner having received the retirement benefit to the tune of Rs.80,000 has totally failed to mention the same in the affidavit tiled in support of the petition. In the reply affidavit he has stated that the amount has been spent for the marriage of his daughter. He has failed to furnish the date of the marriage of his daughter. In the absence of this vital material it cannot be taken for granted that the peti- tioner had spent the entire amount for his daughter's marriage. 8. Apart from this, admittedly, the petitioner is owning agricultural lands for nearly 5 acres. Naturally he will receive the income from those lands. The petitioner has failed to mention the income from those lands. 9. The learned counsel for the respondent has drawn the attention of this Court to the Judgment reported in P. V.Chandrasekaran v. Thirumalai Chit Funds P. V.Chandrasekaran v. Thirumalai Chit Funds P. V.Chandrasekaran v. Thirumalai Chit Funds , A.I.R. 1989 Mad. 3 wherein in this connection, the learned counsel drew by attention to the decision reported in Chellammal v. Muthulakshmi Ammal , (1945)1 MLJ. 53 : A.I.R 1955 Mad 296: I.L.R. 1945 Mad 528: 1945 M.W.N. 97. 3 wherein in this connection, the learned counsel drew by attention to the decision reported in Chellammal v. Muthulakshmi Ammal , (1945)1 MLJ. 53 : A.I.R 1955 Mad 296: I.L.R. 1945 Mad 528: 1945 M.W.N. 97. A Division Bench of this Court consisting of Leach, C.J. and Clark, J. held: “Under O.33 Rule 2 read with O.33 , Rule 5(a) ; and O.44 , Rule 1. It is the bounden duty of the petitioner applying for leave to sue or appeal as a pauper to make a full and accurate verified statement of bis or her properties. The utmost good faith is required of the petitioner in the matter of disclosure of his or her assets and any intentional departure from good faith, whatever the motive may be, must result in the dismissal of the petition. Accordingly where the petitioner obtained leave to appeal in forma pauperis by practising fraud on the court by not disclosing all his assets the leave must be cancelled. In Rajkumar Bhagatvasaran v. V.P.V.Rajan Rajkumar Bhagatvasaran v. V.P.V.Rajan Rajkumar Bhagatvasaran v. V.P.V.Rajan , (1971)1 MLJ. 510 a Division Bench consisting of K.Veeraswami C.J. and V.V.Raghavan, Jerlied on the earlier decision cited above and held as follows: “At most good faith is expected on the part of the applications who seek leave to sue in forma pauperis. Motive for suppression is irrelevant. It is no use contending that having regard to the large amount of court-fee that has to be paid, suppression of Rs.300 per mensem (on facts) would not make any difference. The point is one of good faith and not whether, in view of the large amount of court-fee, the appellant who is shown to be in good faith making the application without full details would be unable to pay court-fee”. In K.V.Abubucker v. Madhava.Panicker K.V.Abubucker v. Madhava.Panicker K.V.Abubucker v. Madhava.Panicker , 1982 T.L.N.J. 431 Natarajan, J., (as he men was) held that the non-disclosure of the income of Rs.500 by way of salary by the petitioner is sufficient to reject the application. The learned Judge considered the earlier decisions and approved the laid down in those decisions. In K.V.Abubucker v. Madhava.Panicker K.V.Abubucker v. Madhava.Panicker K.V.Abubucker v. Madhava.Panicker , 1982 T.L.N.J. 431 Natarajan, J., (as he men was) held that the non-disclosure of the income of Rs.500 by way of salary by the petitioner is sufficient to reject the application. The learned Judge considered the earlier decisions and approved the laid down in those decisions. Applying the ratio laid down in the said decisions to the facts of this case, I am of the view that in view of the specific admission of P.W.1 himself about the failure to mention the 2 acres and 16 cents of land, which is worth more than a lakh of rupees and also the share of the face value of Rs.80,000 possessed by them in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the petition is liable to be dismissed,” Following the same ratio, I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to prefer an appeal as an indigent person since he has failed to disclose his entire assets and the C.M.P. is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this C.M.P. is dismissed. The petitioner is granted six weeks time to pay the Court-fees. Petition dismissed.