JUDGMENT Virendra Kumar Mathur, J. - This Misc. Application under Order 44, Rule 3 CPC has been filed for permission to maintain the appeal as indigent person, as the deceased plaintiff Durga Ram was allowed to sue as indigent person by the trial court. 2. It was stated that the plaintiff Durga Ram was allowed to sue as indigent person by the trial court vide order dated 31.07.2009, which was based upon property schedule dated 19.03.2009, affidavit of Durga Ram dated 19.03.2009, report of the Munsarim dated 25.05.2009 and sworn statement of Durga Ram dated 13.07.2009. The deceased Durga Ram was possessed of his entire property having value of Rs. 60,000/- only as per property schedule. He passed away on 23.08.2011 and hence, his heirs, the present appellants, have filed the present appeal against the judgment & decree dated 27.08.2015 passed by the trial court. 3. It was also submitted that the deceased plaintiff Durga Ram was only earning person in the family, who had lost his earning capacity since the incident dated 03.07.2008 by electric burns. The appellants herein were impleaded before the trial court due to death of Durga Ram on 23.08.2011. After death of Durga Ram, the appellants were allowed to continue the suit as indigent persons without any further inquiry in the matter. The appellants herein are having no sufficient means of property to pay heavy amount of court-fee to the tune of Rs. 75,065/- and therefore, the present appellants may also be allowed to maintain the present appeal as indigent persons. 4. On the averments mentioned above, it was prayed that the application be allowed and the appellants may be allowed to pursue the appeal as indigent persons. In support of their contentions, the counsel for the appellants relied on the judgment reported in 2006 (1) Law Herald 0840 (P&H): Premi Devi vs. State of Haryana & others and contended that the petitioner therein was permitted to file the suit as indigent person, therefore, while filing the appeal against judgment & decree passed in said suit, she was only required to file an affidavit stating therein that she has not ceased to be an indigent person since the date of the decree under appeal. 5. 5. He further placed reliance on judgment reported in 2008 (4) KLO 3049 : Smt. Devamma w/o Nanjappa vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer and the Executive Engineer and the judgment reported in AIR 2005 Raj 32 : Smt. Manjulata vs. Sidhkara and argued that under Order 33, Rule 1 CPC, the expression "not possessed of sufficient means" refers to plaintiff''s capacity to pay prescribed court-fee. Explanation-I thereof contemplates not possession of property but sufficient means with capacity to raise money to pay court-fee, therefore, mere possession of ornaments or a plot is not sufficient to not to declare as pauper. 6. In the present case, the deceased plaintiff Durga Ram having died on 23.08.2011, he was being allowed to sue as indigent person on the basis of his movable & immovable property (described in schedule-Ka and schedule-Kha), with total value of his entire property in the sum of Rs. 60,000/-; in view of this, it was not possible for such a person to pay court-fee of Rs. 75,065/-. Thus, it can not be said that the plaintiff-appellants possess sufficient means to pay court-fee. 7. In view of facts & circumstances of the present case and the ratio of judgment in Manjulata''s case ( AIR 2005 Raj 32 ) , the present application deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, this misc. application (No. 995/2017) is allowed and the appellants are permitted to maintain this appeal as paupers.