JUDGMENT 1. - The defendant applicant has sought an order allowing his first appeal as pauper on the grounds inter alia that he has no source of income and is a student and he has only the suit property which too is disputed and has no other movable and immovable properly. In reply, the plaintiff respondent denied the averments of the pauper application, rather the respondent quoted some of the averments of the plaints of the defendant's own suit No. 13/97 pending before the ADJ No. 3, Jaipur City and that of his written statement to suit No. 40/92 besides his statement in those suits, with a view to establish that the defendant is not an indigent person inasmuch as he is able to pay the court fees payable on the appeal as he has been paying such court fees in other suits and further that he has a joint family house in Purani Basti Jaipur having his share therein. 2. This Court in its order dt. 22.7.99 directed the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) to conduct inquiry as to the pauperism of the defendant and a liberty was granted to the parties to lead their evidence during inquiry. During inquiry before the Deputy Registrar, Mukesh Saini (applicant) appeared himself and examined two more witnesses Tarun Kumar and Ramzan, while Tolaram appeared as non-applicant's witness. After hearing arguments, the Deputy Registrar concluded the inquiry by submitting his report on 8.9.2000 on the question as to whether applicant is capable of paying court fee or not. According to the report, the applicant does not have any source of income and that he is student of class 12th. 3. The respondent raised objections against the report of the Deputy Registrar by inter alia contending that the Deputy Registrar erred in not considering documents (EXA1 to ExA3)- contents whereof have been quoted in the cross objection petition which appear to have been mere reiteration of his reply to the papuper application. However it has also been urged on behalf of the respondent that applicant became major on 28.9.96 and after death of Narainji, he became owner of moveable and immovable property left by Narainji as a result of his Will. Reply to the respondent's objection has also been filed by the applicant. 4. However it has also been urged on behalf of the respondent that applicant became major on 28.9.96 and after death of Narainji, he became owner of moveable and immovable property left by Narainji as a result of his Will. Reply to the respondent's objection has also been filed by the applicant. 4. Main thrust of objections raised by the respondents as against the claim of the appellant as an indigent person is that the appellant has become a major on 28.9.96; he acquired moveable & immovable property as a result of Will executed by Narainji in his favour, inasmuch as having a joint family house in Purani Basti with share therein, he has been paying court fees in other suits. 5. "Indigent person" is defined in O.33, R. 1, CPC. As per explanation 1 to R.1 of O.33 CPC defines an indigent person as one who "is not possessed of sufficient means" (other than property exempt from attachment in execution of a decree and the subject matter of the suit) to enable him to pay the fee prescribed by law to the plaint in such suit. 6. As expounded in (1) Gehru v. Charan Das Dogra ( AIR 1982 HP 23 (DB) , followed in (2) OP Neelam Hosiery v. SBI ( AIR 1994 HP 1 ) , 'possession of sufficient means' does not mean possession of sufficient property, because one may be possessed of sufficient property but still may not be possessed of sufficient means. Thus it depends upon nature of the property or the person who easily comes in possession of sufficient means. Sufficient means includes such means on which bare living of the applicant and his family members is dependent. Thus what is intended is capacity to raise funds by normal and available lawful means and not by any means whatsoever, improper or illegal. Further it does not mean that the indigent person should first deprive himself of sole means of livelihood or alienate all his assets and seek justice in pecuniary. 7. Moreover, merely because a person having a share in joint family property, may be of considerable value, it does not mean that it would always raise comparatively sufficient amounts on its security. When the property does not consist of cash, the test is whether in concrete circumstances, he could succeed in raising anything substantial by exercising the power. 7. Moreover, merely because a person having a share in joint family property, may be of considerable value, it does not mean that it would always raise comparatively sufficient amounts on its security. When the property does not consist of cash, the test is whether in concrete circumstances, he could succeed in raising anything substantial by exercising the power. What is really necessary is that the applicant should either possess property or have such control over property as is sufficient to enable him to command credit and raise sufficient money to pay court-fee. Thus a person cannot be said to be possessed of sufficient means unless he has actual control over a thing and unless he is in possession of it or can reduce it into his possession without having recourse to law. I am fortified in by decisions in (3) V.Krishna Bhatt v. Ravi Shankar (AIR 1978 Karn.117) , & (4) A.Prabhakaran Nair v. KP Neelakantan Pillai ( AIR 1988 Ker 267 ) . Benefit of Order 33, CPC is conferred on persons without 'sufficient means' and not without any means at all. Pauperism is not a pre-requisite for the leave. 8. That apart, possession of hard cash sufficient enough to pay the court-fee is not a pre-requisite to make one a person of sufficient means within the purview of Order 33, CPC. A person entitled to sufficient property may nevertheless be not possessed of sufficient means to pay court-fee. Thus even one having entitled to or possessed of property cannot by itself be the ground to assume that the petitioner is having or possessed by sufficient means merely by virtue of his entitlement to inheritance to the State of the deceased subsequently in favour of the said indigent. Similarly, the words, 'possessed of sufficient means' meant that what was not possessed by the person at the time of institution of the suit cannot be taken into account. 9. K.G.Balakrishnan, J. (as he then was) in (5) S.Resleth v. Indian Bank ( AIR 1992 Ker. 359 ) held that the enquiry whether a woman is an indigent person or not must be confined to her capacity alone and permission cannot be refused on the ground that her husband is a businessman having sufficient income to pay court fees due. In (6) A. Murlidhar v. Soshalamma (AIR 1956 Hyd. 359 ) held that the enquiry whether a woman is an indigent person or not must be confined to her capacity alone and permission cannot be refused on the ground that her husband is a businessman having sufficient income to pay court fees due. In (6) A. Murlidhar v. Soshalamma (AIR 1956 Hyd. 31) the Court held that the question whether any relative of the pauper petitioner has sufficient means to pay Court fee cannot be taken into consideration while determining the indigency. Thus viewed, if the applicant has got relatives who are possessing valuable properties, that is not a criterion to disallow to sue as an indigent person. Hence, financial condition of applicant alone is to be seen and others is totally irrelevant. 10. In their evidence, Mukesh Saini (AW1), Tarun Kumar (AW2) & Rehman (AW3) have proved that Mukesh Saini is a student studying in Class 12th standard and is dependent on his parental grand father for his survival, inasmuch as he has not been doing any work and so having no source of income. Rather the respondent himself appeared as witness but he admitted that the applicant was not doing any work and that the cultivation of the land in dispute was stopped since 1998, therefore, cultivation activities have not been carried out over the land in dispute and moreover schedule of movable and immovable properties (Ex1) & declaration (Ex2) of the applicant has been admitted by the respondent and further that all exhibits having been relied by the respondent like ExA1 are in fact with reference to his mother and indicates her income. These documents do not indicate that the applicant is possessed of sufficient means to raise funds for depositing the court fees, and that apart these documents are irrelevant being related to his relatives, and thus are excluded with regard to pauperism of the applicant. In this view of the matter, I do not find that the Deputy Registrar has erred in law in arriving at the conclusion that the applicant has not been doing any work and thus having no source of income cannot generate sufficient funds to pay court fees in the appeal.The schedules & declarations are not denied by the respondent nor he cross examined the applicant or his witnesses on these schedules & declarations. Rather the respondent admitted schedule and declaration as to the properties annexed with application under consideration. Rather the respondent admitted schedule and declaration as to the properties annexed with application under consideration. Thus the respondent in my considered view, is estopped and legally barred from contending that the applicant is capable of paying court-fees. The respondent has utterly failed to establish the independent survival & existence of the applicant rather has failed to rebut by cogent evidence the dependency & insufficient means of the applicant. Once the report of Officer of Court in an inquiry into pauperism on the question of fact is final, in my considered view, the respondent failed to raise objections with regard to pauperism involving question of law in the facts and circumstances of the case. The objections raised by the respondent herein, do not involve questions of law so as to sustainability of the conclusions arrived at by the Inquiry Officer as to his report with regard to pauperism. 11. After having gone through the report of the Deputy Registrar of this court I find that his finding is supported by acceptable evidence and convincing reasons with regard to means of the applicant and it does not suffer from any infirmity. Hence, there is absolutely nothing to differ from the finding rendered by the Deputy Registrar that the applicant is not possessed of sufficient means to pay the court-fee. The applicant has no capacity to raise the money necessary for payment of court fee. The question of indigency was decided by the Inquiry Officer on evaluation of evidence.Resultantly, the application to file the appeal as an indigent person and in forma pauperis before this Court is allowed. Let the first appeal be registered and put up for admission before appropriate bench hearing such matters along with stay application after one week.Application Allowed. *******