Kuppuswami Naidu v. Varadappa Naidu And Others

(Prayer: Petition (disposed of on 24-6-1942) under S. 115 of Act V of 1908 praying the High Court to revise the order of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Vellore dated 20-3-1941 and made in O.P. No. 58 of 1940.)

All that can be said for the petitioner at best is that the order of the lower Court is wrong. But this by itself will not justify interference in revision under S. 115 of the Code. It was not a case of unintentional or accidental omission of assets. The Judge finds that it was a fraudulent suppression. The argument that, even if the particular asset that has now come to light had been disclosed, it would not affect the question of the alleged pauperism of the applicant does not take stock of the fact that the utmost bona fides is required of the petitioner in the matter of the disclosure of his or her assets and that any intentional departure from good faith, whatever the motive might be, must attract the consequence of a dismissal of the petition, because under O. 33, R. 2, read with O. 33 R. 5(a) it is the bounden duty of the petitioner to make a full and accurate verified statement about his properties. Mt. Chamala Kuar v. Pursottom Das (A.I.R. 1932 Pat. 308) [LQ/PatHC/1932/61] was relied on for the petitioner, but there the omission was held to be not an act of bad faith, and related to trifling moveable propertiesa couple of trunks and an almyrah. The earlier case in Durga Prasad v. Sri Niwas (A.I.R. 1930 Pat. 368) [LQ/PatHC/1930/21] was sought to be distinguished on the ground that the assets suppressed were of value and that their inclusion would have led to the dismissal of the petition. This distinction however is not sound on the facts because even in that case there was the explanation of the pauper that the value of the equity of redemption in certain properties was worthless and that his interest in certain other properties was similarly of no value. The learned Judges proceed on the footing that, even if such were the case, it was his duty to have made a full disclosure, and this is pointed out in more than one place in the course of the judgment of the learned Chief Justice.

This petition is dismissed with costs.