B. SESHASAYANA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner in this Civil revision Petition seeks to revise the order of the Senior Civil Judge, Tanuku granting leave to R-l/plaintiff to sue as an indigent person. R-l. herein is the plaintiff; the petitioner and R-2 to R-4 are D-l to D-5 respectively in the suit.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of possession of plaint C and D schedule properties and for past mesne profits from D-l. It is her case that she is legally wedded wife of Laxminarayana who got the plaint C and D schedule properties under a will dated 16. 4. 1979 executed by venkatasubbamma who died issueless on 4. 2. 1984. According to her, Basavaraju who is the husband of Venkatasubbamma is the senior paternal uncle of her husband and that her husband got the plaint C and D schedule properties under a Will dated 16. 4. 1979 executed by Venkatasubbamma. It is her further case that she has no means to pay the Court fee and therefore she sought for permission of the Court to sue as an indigent person. The petitioner herein who is said to be the adopted son of basava Raju resisted the petition of the plaintiff seeking permission to sue as an indigent person. It is the case of the petitioner that the plaintiff has sufficient means to pay the Court fee and that she is not the legally wedded wife of Laxminarayana and that the will dated 16. 4. 1979 is a rank of forgery. On behalf of the plaintiff, she got herself examined as P. W. 1 and on behalf of D-l, he got himself examined as DW. l and marked registration extract of partition deed dated 31. 3. 1971 as Ex. B-1. On considering the evidence and on hearing Counsel for both the parties, the learned Senior Civil Judge allowed the application of the plaintiffs and permitted her to sue as an indigent person. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Senior civil Judge, D-l has filed this Civil Revision petition.

( 3 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner contends that the contents of Ex. B-1 certified copy of partition deed amply prove that the plaintiff possesses Ac. 10. 00 of land and that the lower Court without considering Ex. B-1 certified copy of the partition deed granted permission to the plaintiff to sue as an indigent person. It is nextly contended by him that the plaintiff has not explained anything as to the circumstances in which she lost the possession of the properties which were allotted to the share of her husband in partition with her senior paternal uncle under registered partition deed dated 31. 3. 1971. There appears to be no dispute that the husband of the plaintiff got ten acres of land in partition with his senior paternal uncle under a registered partition deed dated 31. 3. 1971. The suit relates to the properties of Basavaraju who is the senior paternal uncle of the plaintiff s husband. It is the case of the plaintiff that her husband left the house in April, 1988 and his whereabouts are not known since then and therefore, he is presumed to have died.

( 4 ) IT is contended by R-l/plaintiff that petitioner/d-1 is not entitled to question the order granting permission to R-l/plaintiff to sue as an indigent person since the State which is primarily interested in questioning the legality or correctness of the order of the lower Court has not challenged the impugned order. He placed reliance on the following decisions: (1) Chinnamani Nadar v. Devagirubai rajan, (1958) 2 MLJ 93. (2) P. V. Ramamohan alias Bayappa Reddy and 3 others v. P. Venkatareddy and others, 1971 APHC Notes 208. (3) Laxmamma v. Yadagiri Rao, AIR 1972 AP 240. (4) S. Koteswaramma v. S. Subrahmanyam, air 1973 AP 196. In the first cited decision the Madras High court held that though the Trial Court did not take into account certain items of property while assessing the capacity of the plaintiff to pay Court fees and granted leave to sue as pauper, the High Court will not interfere in revision filed by the defendant. It is the State that is primarily interested in questioning the legality or corr

Click Here to Read the rest of this document