S. B. MAJAGE, J. ( 1 ) THE appellants/petitioners are aggrieved by the impugned order dated 24-3-2001 passed in P. Misc. No. 5/97 since their request to permit them to sue as paupers, has been turned down by the learned Prl. Civiljudge (Sr. Dn.), Bangalore rural District, Bangalore. ( 2 ) IT is the case of the appellants that except the suit schedule property, they are not having any property worth Rs. l,000/- either movable or immovable, including wearing apparel, and even they could not raise loan on the security of the suit property for the purpose of paying Court fee and hence, sought permission to sue as paupers. However, the respondents disputed the said claim on the ground that the appellants have suppressed material facts and the properties held by them, though they have several properties in and around Yelachahalli village besides house properties and, even otherwise, the petition filed by appellants is not in conformity with Order Rule 2 of cpc and against the mandatory provisions contained in CPC and consequently, they requested to refuse the relief. The appellants examined one of them whereas, respondents have examined the second respondent and got marked 10 documents in support of their case. However, after hearing, the learned civil Judge turned down the request of the appellants. ( 3 ) HEARD both sides. It is submitted for appellants that the trial Court was wrong in refusing the permission whereas, it is argued for the respondents that the appellants have suppressed the fact of possessing properties and hence, permission was rightly refused. Perused the record carefully. ( 4 ) AT the outset, it may be noted that Ex. R1 produced by the respondents shows that the appellants 1 and 2 were regranted five lands, including the survey number of the suit property i. e. , Sy. No. 66, by order dated 19-8-1988 to the extent of l/3rd share each. In fact, the statement of RW-1 is also available with regard to said record. Neither the said evidence nor the said document has been challenged by the appellants in any manner. Further, there are documents at exs. R. 2 to 10, which show names of appellants- 1 and 2 with regard to land Sy. Nos. 13, 15, 30, 54, 59 and 106. Five lands, which have been regranted to the extent of 2/3rd as per said order dated 19-8-1988, are Sy. Nos. Further, there are documents at exs. R. 2 to 10, which show names of appellants- 1 and 2 with regard to land Sy. Nos. 13, 15, 30, 54, 59 and 106. Five lands, which have been regranted to the extent of 2/3rd as per said order dated 19-8-1988, are Sy. Nos. 13, 15, 30, 59 and 66. Admittedly, Sy. No. 66 is suit property. So, if that is excluded as property held or possessed by the appellants for the purpose of raising loan for paying court fee, there are four other lands belonging to them. It is even specifically admitted by PW-1 that four lands have been regranted to his father and first appellant and said lands have not been disposed of by them nor the Government has resumed possession of such regranted lands. So, in view of the said clear statement of PW-1 and the evidence of RW-1 corroborated by unchallenged documents, there can be no hesitation to hold that the appellants hold lands sy. Nos. 13, 15, 30 and 59 of Yelachahalli village. However, no reference of these lands is found in the pleading of the appellants. ( 5 ) IT is also pertinent to note that PW-1, who is none other than the fourth appellant, has categorically admitted in his cross-examination that there is one more house near the house of respondents-2 and 3 in addition to the house in which they are residing. ( 6 ) FURTHER, according to PW-1, he is working in a dairy, getting salary of Rs. 300/- per month whereas, his father (second appellant) serves as a "thoti" in the village, though not stated salary of his father as "thoti". If there is no salary, what is the income as "thoti" is also not stated by said witness. ( 7 ) IT is well settled that mere possession of some property by itself is not sufficient to hold that a person, who seeks for permission to sue as pauper, has "sufficient means" and consequently, able to pay the requisite court fee, unless the property in his possession shows that he has "sufficient means", which enables him to pay the prescribed court fee. It means that applicant seeking permission to sue in forma pauperis has to show or disclose property, whether movable or immovable i. e. , his means as that is the basis on which, it could be ascertained and said that he has or has no "sufficient means" to pay the requisite Court fee on the plaint. ( 8 ) SO, though Rule 1 of Order 33 of CPC says as to when a person can institute a suit as pauper, what should be the contents of an application, made for seeking permission to sue as pauper, is prescribed in Rule 2 of Order 33 of CPC. In that view, Rule 2 has much significance in the matter, which is again clear from Rule 5 (a) of Order 33 of cpc, which says that the Court shall reject an application for permission to sue as an indigent person where it is not framed and presented in the manner prescribed by Rules 2 and 3 of Order 33 of CPC. So, now reference can be had to Rule 2. ( 9 ) ORDER Rule 2 of CPC is as under :"2. Contents of application. Every application for permission to sue as an indigent person shall contain the particulars required in regard to plaints in suits; a schedule of any movable or Immovable property belonging to the applicant, with the estimated value thereof, shall be annexed thereto: and it shall be signed and verified in the manner prescribed for the signing and verification of pleadings. " (Underline supplied) said provision makes it clear that when any application is filed seeking permission to sue as an indigent person not only it shall contain the particulars required in regard to plaints in suits; even a schedule of any movable or Immovable property belonging to the applicant with the estimated value thereof shall also be annexed thereto. ( 10 ) IT need not be said that in the absence of particulars of properties belonging to an applicant with their estimated value, whether or not, the applicant has "sufficient means" to pay the requisite Court fee cannot be ascertained. ( 10 ) IT need not be said that in the absence of particulars of properties belonging to an applicant with their estimated value, whether or not, the applicant has "sufficient means" to pay the requisite Court fee cannot be ascertained. So, furnishing a schedule or at least particulars of movable and immovable property belonging to an applicant with estimated value thereof is made mandatory to ascertain and hold whether or not, the applicant in such a case possesses "sufficient means" to pay the requisite court fee on the plaint as, in the absence of such particulars, the Court will not be able to know and hold whether or not. the applicant is able to pay the Court fee on the plaint. This can be inferred from the word "shall" used in said Rule when seen with Order 33, Rule 5 (a) of CPC besides the object with such a schedule of property (movable and immovable) belonging to applicant is required to be annexed to the application. ( 11 ) IN the case of Chingakham Chaoba singh, AIR 1964 Man 31, it is held that when a party comes to Court and seeks its aid to file a suit in forma pauperis, he must not attempt to conceal any of his property and he must show his bona fides and burden is on him to satisfy the Court that he has disclosed all his properties and that he was really not in a position to pay the Court fee and any intentional departure from good faith whatever the motive might be, must attract the consequence of a dismissal of the petition. Almost same view is expressed in the case of Rajinder Singh, AIR 1965 Punjab 331. In fact, in the case of Ramniklal v. Mathurlal, AIR 1965 Gujarat 214, it is held that application to sue as pauper, not containing particulars required by Rule 2, has to be rejected and even if the particulars are supplied subsequently, that will not be a defence. Similar view has been expressed in the decisions reported in AIR 1976 Patna 127 and AIR 1977 Andh Pra 15. Similar view has been expressed in the decisions reported in AIR 1976 Patna 127 and AIR 1977 Andh Pra 15. ( 12 ) OF course, in the case of V. Krishna bhat v. Ravishankar, AIR 1978 Kant 117, this Court has taken a view that it is not every case of omission that is fatal, but only omissions indicative of lack of bona fides or good faith on the part of the applicants, that would indeed be fatal and the party lacking any good faith is not entitled to the concessions at all. It is further held therein that whether the conduct of a party lacks good faith and whether the omission to mention all the properties belonging to him, is a deliberate act of suppression, has to be ascertained from the facts of that particular case and the surrounding circumstances. So, recently in the case of M. L. Balaram v. Canara Bank, ILR 2001 Kant 4796 : (2002 aihc 746), this Court has refused to interfere in the order of dispaupering a petitioner on the ground that he had not disclosed all his business assets in his application filed seeking permission to sue as pauper. ( 13 ) IT is true that a learned single Judge of this Court in the case of Ranganatha v. The Chief Secretary, State of Karnataka (2000) 3 Kant LJ (SN) 30 at page 23 : (1999 aihc 1951), has held that rejection of application on the ground that applicant is the co-sharer of co-parcenery property is not sustainable in law when it is found that he has no other property or wherewithal to pay for Court-fee. Further, in the case of D. S. Premakumari v. D. S. Srinivasamurthy (1994) 3 Kant LJ 445 : ILR 1993 Kant 1862), this Court has held that an application for permission to file a suit as an indigent person cannot be rejected on the ground of receipt of certain amount towards maintenance in an execution proceeding. Further, in the case of D. S. Premakumari v. D. S. Srinivasamurthy (1994) 3 Kant LJ 445 : ILR 1993 Kant 1862), this Court has held that an application for permission to file a suit as an indigent person cannot be rejected on the ground of receipt of certain amount towards maintenance in an execution proceeding. ( 14 ) SO, according to me, there is a mandate in Order 33, Rule 2 of CPC, not only to show any movable and immovable property belonging to him but also to give the estimated value of such movable and immovable property belonging to the applicant, so that it can be ascertained and held as to whether property possessed by him i. e. , means he has is such that it enables him to pay the required Court-fee or not. ( 15 ) HOWEVER, in the present matter, without giving description/particulars of any movable or immovable property belonging to them and except stating that they are not having any property worth Rs. 1,000/- either movable or immovable including wearing apparel, the appellants have neither annexed any schedule to their application filed under Order 33, Rule 1 of CPC nor they have furnished particulars or description of any property belonging to them nor they have given estimated value of any such property belonging to them. ( 16 ) ADMITTEDLY, the appellants have 2/3rd share in four landed properties, which they got by way of regrant in the year 1988 itself, besides a house property in addition to their residential house. This can be said even if three other landed properties bearing Sy. Nos. 19, 54 and 106, found in Ex. R 1, are ignored for the reason that they were not regranted to them. However, for the reasons best known to them, they have not disclosed any of the said properties anywhere in the application nor annexed any schedule to the application much less the value of such properties. Simply because the appellant nos. 1 and 2 have only 1/3rd share each in the said four lands, besides land Sy. No. 66 in which the suit property comes, that itself could not have been a ground for the appellants not to mention said properties, when order 33, Rule 2 of CPC requires them to disclose those properties with estimated value thereof. In fact, no reason much less satisfactory reason is forthcoming for said omission. No. 66 in which the suit property comes, that itself could not have been a ground for the appellants not to mention said properties, when order 33, Rule 2 of CPC requires them to disclose those properties with estimated value thereof. In fact, no reason much less satisfactory reason is forthcoming for said omission. ( 17 ) IN the circumstances, it can be said to be a deliberate omission on their part in order to show that they do not possess "sufficient means" to pay requisite Court fee and not an accidental or a bonafide omission. So, in view of the material on record, that the appellants have failed to show that they have no "sufficient means" to pay the requisite court fee and as such, no infirmity is found in the finding arrived at by the trial court against them. In the result, the appeal fails and accordingly, it is dismissed. However, the appellants are given one months time from today to pay the requisite Court fee on the plaint, if they desire to do so. Appeal dismissed. --- *** --- .