ORDER A.K. Mishra, J. This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 28-6-1993 passed by the trial Court rejecting the application filed under Order XXXIII, Rule 1 of the CPC to permit the plaintiff to sue as an indigent person. Plaintiff had filed the suit on 25-9-1989 claiming 1/7 share in the undivided property mentioned in schedule A, B, C and D for the purpose of Court fee and Jurisdiction. The suit was valued at Rs. 20,15,888/- representing 1/7 interest of the plaintiff. It was alleged that he was in possession of the part of the suit property and Court fee payable u/s 7(VI-A)(a) of the Court Fees Act was 39,350/-. Plaintiff alleged that he was not possessing sufficient fund to enable him to pay the requisite Court fee of Rs. 39,500/- hence the suit under Order XXXIII, Rule 1 of the CPC was filed. An application was also filed on 21-9-1990 that the annual income of the plaintiff was only Rs. 5000/-. Thus he was exempted as per the government notification dated 1-4-1983 issued u/s 35 of the Court Fees Act, 1870. The plaintiff and the defendants both led the oral evidence in support of the claim and the counter claim. Defendants opposed the claim of the plaintiff on the ground that plaintiff had sold a plot to one Arvind Kumar for a consideration of Rs. 12,100/-. Plaintiff is also said to have purchased 1.70 acres of land at village Jhilmila by a registered sale deed on 6-5-1975. Plaintiff also owns a house at Jarhabhata which has been let-out to one Abdul Gaffar and an income of Rs. 800/- has been derived from the rent of that house. Plaintiff is also said to have constructed a triple storied building at Karbala valuing at Rs. 3,00,000, five years ago. Plaintiff was involved in the business of bricks manufacturing on partnership basis with one Rameshwar and Jagatram. The plaintiff was also running a hotel at the main locality of Bilaspur city at Karbala road and the income out of hotel business was not less than Rs. 250/- per day. Plaintiffs sons are also involved in different businesses to augment the income of the family. Plaintiff has suppressed material facts regarding property which was in his possession in the application filed under Order XXXIII, Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code. 250/- per day. Plaintiffs sons are also involved in different businesses to augment the income of the family. Plaintiff has suppressed material facts regarding property which was in his possession in the application filed under Order XXXIII, Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code. The learned trial Court has held that plaintiff was doing the business of hotel at Karbala road, Bilaspur, which is an advanced city. Income from the said hotel business could not be less than Rs. 250/- per day. Trial Court has also found the income of Rs. 800/- per month from the house which was let out to one Abdul Gaffar. It was further held that plaintiff was also involved in the business of bricks manufacturing in partnership with Rameshwar and Jagatram. Plaintiffs sons are also doing various businesses, one was selling the clothes, and the other was helping the business of hotel. Thus it was held that there were sufficient sources with the plaintiff to pay the Court fee. It was also held that plaintiff had purchased 1.70 acres of land at village Jarha Bhata in the name of his wife Shantibai and constructed a house there and had given the same on rent for Rs. 800/- per month to one Abdul Gaffar and before filing the suit he had sold a plot for a consideration of Rs. 12,100/-. It was further held by the trial Court that plaintiff has suppressed material facts regarding property which was in his possession from the application filed under Order XXXIII Rule 1 C.P.C. He has not filed the application before the Court with clean hands being in possession of sufficient sources to pay the Court fee. Learned counsel for the plaintiff/applicant has forcefully submitted that the Court below has included the income from the house at Jarhabhata which is the subject matter of dispute. Its rental income could also not be included. He further submitted that the rental income is not proved. He has further submitted that the land which was purchased at village Jhilmila has reverted back under the provisions of Rin Vimukti Adhiniyam. He has further submitted that the learned trial Court has erred in determining the income at Rs. 250/- per day from the hotel business. He has placed reliance on a decision in the matter of Vishnu vs. Purkha reported in 1983 MPWN 357 . He has further submitted that the learned trial Court has erred in determining the income at Rs. 250/- per day from the hotel business. He has placed reliance on a decision in the matter of Vishnu vs. Purkha reported in 1983 MPWN 357 . He further placed reliance on a decision of the Madras High Court reported in Palaniandi Vs. Logambal and Others, . Plaintiff has admitted that a hotel business was being done by him at Karbala road, at Bilaspur. His hotel starts in the morning and plaintiff himself and his sons used to sit in the hotel by rotation. He has further admitted that he has done a brick manufacturing business in partnership for about one year. Partnership deed was also written but its dissolution was not reduced to writing. He has further admitted that he owned one plot at Juna Bilaspur which was sold by him before filing of the suit to one Arvind Kumar at the rate of Rs. 15 per sq.ft. He could not deny that the entire land was 550 ft. He has also admitted that the sale deed was executed by him alone. However, he submitted that the money was divided in three brothers. This version has not been relied upon by the trial Court for the reason that in the sale-deed name of brothers was not mentioned. He has further admitted that it was not mentioned that other brothers were having any right in the land. It may be seen that he has admitted that he had purchased the land at village Jhilmila. That sale deed has been considered by the Court below the land was purchased from some Muslim who was not of backward class. No order of reversion of land has been placed on record by the plaintiff at the stage of evidence, even though it was specifically set-up by the defendants that the land was owned by the plaintiff at village Jhilmila which has been suppressed. If the land was reverted, it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to have filed the order of reverting of the land. Merely non mutation was held to be not enough by the trial Court. It may be seen that applicant has examined one more witness Chetandas who has also stated that plaintiff was doing the business of hotel at Karbala Road, Bilaspur. Merely non mutation was held to be not enough by the trial Court. It may be seen that applicant has examined one more witness Chetandas who has also stated that plaintiff was doing the business of hotel at Karbala Road, Bilaspur. He has further stated that he has obtained 1/3 share from the plaintiff with respect to land sold at Juna Bilaspur. He has further stated that hotel was started at 9 a.m. and used to remain open till 9 p.m. This statement goes to show that hotel business was running briskly the plaintiff himself and his sons used to sit in it by rotation. He has further deposed that from the hotel business income of Rs. 1000/- to Rs. 1,500/- accrued per day. Betal Shop of the son of the plaintiff was also situated in the hotel. From that betal shop per day income of Rs. 200 to 300/-. Size of the hotel is said to be 20 x 30 ft. Another witness Shyamlal, the brother of the plaintiff has stated that plaintiff was doing the good hotel business. It used to run throughout the day. At one time 20 to 25 customers always remained in the hotel and there was an income of Rs. 1000/- to 1,200/- per day and from the betal shop there was an income of Rs. 300 to 400 per day and Goverdhandas was having a house just behind the hotel. Thus it is apparent that the plaintiff was doing the hotel business and he has admitted it. However, the plaintiff has not disclosed the per day income and has mentioned the per month income to be Rs. 500/-. which is not believable. Trial Court has rightly assessed the income of Rs. 250/- per day from the business of hotel and thus has committed no error. It may be seen that the plaintiff as per his own saying was doing the business of manufacturing of bricks and he has entered into the partnership. He has not placed on record any document regarding the dissolution of the said partnership. Bricks manufacturing business involves the investment of huge fund. Thus it is apparent that plaintiff was a person having sufficient means to pay the Court fee. He has not placed on record any document regarding the dissolution of the said partnership. Bricks manufacturing business involves the investment of huge fund. Thus it is apparent that plaintiff was a person having sufficient means to pay the Court fee. Even if the partnership business has come to an end as deposed by the plaintiff, even in such exigency as the business has been admitted to have been done by the plaintiff in the recent past which goes to show the financial status of the plaintiff. It may be seen that the plaintiff has purchased the property just before the institution of the suit. In any case it is on record that the plaintiff was purchasing and selling the immovable property. Thus he was a person having sufficient means to pay the Court fee. Furthermore, it may be seen that from Abdul Gaffar, he was receiving Rs. 800/- per month towards rent. Submission made by the learned counsel that it is an income derived from the disputed property and it cannot be considered to constitute the means, is not correct. If any income is derived from the disputed property that has to be obviously taken into consideration so as to constitute the means for payment of Court fee. This question was considered in the case of Mohanlal vs. Bhullibai reported in 1973 MPLJ 51, wherein it was held that the word "means" appearing in Order 33, Rule 1 of the Code is intended to cover and include all forms of realisable assets which can be converted into cash and as such can be used for financing the litigation. It was held that the plaintiff had a share in the joint family property, it was a realisable asset which the Court should have taken into consideration. Thus it is not possible to hold that the subject matter of the suit must always be excluded while determining whether the applicant is indigent or not. Whether it should or not be excluded is the matter for consideration of the Court. Keeping in view the discussion as above, the income from the property by way of rent etc. cannot be excluded at all. Learned counsel has further placed reliance on the decision reported in 1985 MPWN 426 so as to contend that subject matter of the dispute could not be considered to form a part of the income. Keeping in view the discussion as above, the income from the property by way of rent etc. cannot be excluded at all. Learned counsel has further placed reliance on the decision reported in 1985 MPWN 426 so as to contend that subject matter of the dispute could not be considered to form a part of the income. But in the said case it was not the rental income derived from the property. The said case is totally distinguishable from the present case. In the case of Vishnu vs. Purkha (supra) this Court has taken into consideration the fact of selling of joint property and required the Court fee of Rs. 4,830. The house was in possession of the plaintiff and there was no material placed on record to show that the applicant was receiving any share out of the sale price. The said case is also distinguishable. In the instant case plaintiff appears to be well to do having various businesses. He was obviously having the interest over the property. In the instant case there is material available on record to show that plaintiff has sold the property for a consideration of Rs. 12,100/- before filing of the suit. He also had other sources of income like house rent, etc. Thus he was having sufficient means to pay the Court fee. In the result there is no merit in the appeal. The same is accordingly dismissed. Parties are directed to bear their own costs. Appeal dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed