E.Padmanabhan, J.: The appellant herein sought for cancellation of a sale deed and leave to institute a suit as an indigent person as he is not in a position to pay the Court-Fees. 2. As the said original petition has been dismissed by the Court below by fair and decretal order dated 27.2.1995, the present appeal has been filed. 3. Heard Mr.P.Valliappan for M/s.Sarvabhauman Associates, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.Sanjeevi, for Mr.S.Kadarkarai, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 4 and 9. 4. The points that arise for consideration are: (i) Whether the appellant is an indigent person? and (ii) Whether he should have been granted leave to sue as an indigent person? 5. The Court fee payable on the plaint comes to Rs.63,916. The appellant instituted an O.P. claiming that he is not in possession of any property and he has no income and that he is an indigent person. The said O.P. was resisted by the respondents contending that the appellant entered into an agreement to sell the property and received a sum of Rs.1.00 lakh towards advance and he is the co-owner in respect of three acres of land and therefore, he is not an indigent person. 6. The Court below has taken the view that the appellant is not an indigent person as he had not produced any receipt to show that he discharged the loan by utilizing the amount received towards advance. 7. The appellant has examined himself as P.W.1. We have been taken through the evidence of P.W.1. The appellant has admitted not only in the evidence but also in the O.P., that he has received a lakh of rupees and the entire amount has been utilised for discharging the loan. 8. It is also further stated in his deposition that he is not in possession of any property and also he has no income at all. As regards the objection that the appellant is the co-owner in respect of three acres of land, the appellant has filed an affidavit before this Court that the said land has been mortgaged and that he is not in a position to dispose of the same to raise funds. 9. As regards the objection that the appellant is the co-owner in respect of three acres of land, the appellant has filed an affidavit before this Court that the said land has been mortgaged and that he is not in a position to dispose of the same to raise funds. 9. Even assuming that he is the co-owner in respect of three acres of land, he is not in a position to dispose of the land or mortgage the land to pay the substantial amount of Court fees. It is nobody fits case that the appellant is carrying on a business and is employed anywhere. As regards a sum of Rs.1.00 lakh, the appellant has deposed that he has already paid that amount towards discharging of loans. Merely because, he has not produced the receipt for discharging of loans, it is not proper to reject his evidence when there is no evidence to the contrary. Assuming for the purpose of argument that the appellant is the co-owner in respect of three acres of land as the same was mortgaged, he is not in a position to raise any funds to pay substantial amount of Court-Fees. 10. Thus it is clear that the appellant is an indigent person and he is not in a position to pay the Court fees on the plaint which comes to Rs.63,916. In such circumstances, we are of the considered view that the Court below has misdirected itself in rejecting the O.P. On the evidence it is clear that the appellant is an indigent person. He is not in a position to pay the Court fee of Rs.63,916 on the plaint and therefore, he should be permitted to sue as an indigent person. The appeal is allowed. Consequently, the pauper O.P. No.84 of 1994 on the file of the Sub Court, Coimbatore is stand allowed and the learned Subordinate Judge shall number the O.P. as suit and proceed further according to law. The parties shall bear their respective costs. Consequently the C.M.P. No.8999 of 1995 is closed.