MAHARAJ BALI Vs. TIRATH DEI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision application under Section 115, Civil P. C. is directed against an order of the Civil Judge of Gonda dated 6-12-1914, rejecting the application of the applicants for leave to sue in forma pauperis.

(2.) It appears that the applicants claimed title to succeed as reversioners to the property of one Sheo Dayal upon the death of his daughter Ganesha in 1932. The case put forward in the plaint was that Sheo Dayal died in 1865 leaving two widows Maharani & Rani. The former died in 1888 & the latter in 1908. Upon the death of Rani, Ganesha succeeded to the property which she held till her death in 1932. The defts. to the suit were some of the descendants of Ganesha & some transferees from her. The suit was brought in 1944. An application under Order XXXIII, Rule 1, Civil P.C. was made on the ground that the applicants were paupers & were unable to pay the court-fee which, according to the valuation fixed in the plaint, came to a sum of Rs. 2, 143/12. The value of the property set out in the schedule attached to the application was a sum of Rs. 250 in addition to some tenancy holdings. One of the applicants Maharaj Bali was examined in support of the application. In his statement Maharaj Bali stated that Sheo Dayal had a son Jai Ram, who survived him. He also stated that he owned some utensils which he had not shown in the schedule of assets & a decree against one Bishwa Nath for costs for Rs. 250. This was brought out in the cross-examination of Maharaj Bali. The statement was made on 2-12-1944, & the Ct. reserved orders for December 5.

(3.) ON December 4 Maharaj Bali filed an application stating that he had by an oversight mentioned that Jai Ram survived Sheo Dayal. As a matter of fact he should have stated that he had predeceased his father. Maharaj Bali also prayed that a copy of the judgment between him & Ganesha which supported him in this respect might be allowed to be admitted.