TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1937 (3) TMI 16
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of sufficient funds to carry on the suit. A different view has been taken by the Allahabad High Court in Mohammad Zaki v. The Municipal Board of Mainpuri (1918) 16 A.L.J. 440. The nearest analogy in my opinion seems to be the case of an executor in regard to which the preponderance of opinion in this Court has been that he can be permitted to sue as a pauper if the estate which he represents, does not possess sufficient funds to carry on the suit - vide Sivagami Ammal v. Gopalaswami Odayar (1924) 48 M.L.J. 390 and Ammakannammal v. Damodara A.I.R. 1928 Mad. 66 : 109 I.C. 258. A different view has been taken by Jackson, J., in A.S. Radhakrishna Aiyar In re (1924) 88 I.C. 91 : 6 P.L.T. 380 where I find the one side was not represented. I ther....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... incorporated or not. This connotes that 'person' would include both natural and legal persons. This is in strict accordance with the conception of a person in law. In his book of 'Jurisprudence' (8th Edition) at page 329, Salmond observes thus: So far as legal theory is concerned, a person is any being whom the law regards as capable of rights or duties. Any being that is so capable is a person, whether a human being or not, and no being that is not so capable is a person, even though he be a man. Persons are the substances of which rights and duties are the attributes. It is only in this respect that persons possess juridical significance, and this is the exclusive point of view from which personality receives legal rec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....poration, as well as a natural person. But although that is a sense which the word will bear in law, and which, as I said, perhaps ought to be attributed to it in the construction of a statute unless there should be any reason for a contrary construction, it is never to be forgotten, that in its popular sense and ordinary use it does not extend so far. 7. The same view was taken by Lord Blackburn at pages 868 and 869. Unless therefore the context and the object of the enactment requires otherwise, 'person' in Order 33, Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code, should have the extended meaning given to it in law. Under Order 33, Rule 1, any suit may be instituted by a pauper, that is, the intended plaintiff in a suit can be a pauper. Suits un....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... a pauper who is competent in law to appear in person from taking advantage of Order 33 of the Civil Procedure Code and appearing by a pleader or recognised agent instead of being present personally. It does not cover cases where from the nature of the case physical presence is impossible or where the law, owing to any disability, directs that all acts required by the Code should be performed by a next friend. 9. In a very early decision of the Madras High Court the word 'person' was understood as including persons in a fiduciary character. In In re Bill (1884) I.L.R. 7 Mad. 390 in accordance with this interpretation, an administrator was held entitled to sue in forma pauperis. This interpretation was never departed from, excepti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... If the principle of law is that a natural person in his own right is a different person when he is representing the estate of another, the test is whether in that representative character and as owner of that estate he is a pauper within the meaning of the explanation of Order 33, Rule 1. The said decision again does not draw a distinction between legal ownership vesting in a person by virtue in a person by virtue of his fulfilling the representative character and so long as he fulfils the representative character and the legal ownership vesting in a person by virtue of succession or inheritance. The case in Mohammad Zaki v. Municipal Board of Mainpuri (1918) 16 A.L.J. 440 also is in favour of the view that an Official Receiver can sue as ....