A person who seeks to sue as a pauper must be true and frank in disclosing his assets. Any intentional omission to disclose assets may result in the dismissal of the application.

R. D. GATTANI, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner Maluram was allotted 15 Bighas of agricultural land by the colonisation Department, Government of Rajasthan. According to him on 15-51964 he executed a general power of attorney in favour of respondent Arjun Singh who without his power on 10-1-1967 executed a sale-deed in respect of the agricultural land allotted to the petitioner in favour of the sons of respondent No. 1, and even the sale price i. e. Rs. 23,500/- mentioned in the sale deed was not given to the petitioner. According to the petitioner the market price of the disputed land at the time of the filing of the suit was Rs. 45,000/ -. The petitioner, therefore, brought a suit in forma pauperis in the Court of Addl. District Judge, Sri Ganganagar on 10-1-1970 for the cancellation of the sale-deed and possession of the land in dispute; in the alternative for the payment of Rupees 45,000/- to him from the defendants.

( 2 ) THE application of the petitioner for permission to sue in forma pauperis was opposed by the defendants, who alleged that the petitioner had sufficient means to pay the court-fees. It was further alleged that the petitioner did not disclose in the Schedule attached to the application a house property belonging to him and which was valued at rupees nineteen thousand. The trial Court recorded evidence of the parties and then by the impugned order rejected the application of the petitioner for being permitted to sue as pauper on the ground that the petitioner failed to disclose in the list of his assets a house belonging to him. The explanation of the petitioner in the, trial Court was that that property was actually worth rupees five to seven hundred only and was mortgaged with one Prakash Chand for rupees 2. 400/ -. The trial Court did not believe that explanation to be true.

( 3 ) AGGRIEVED by the impugned order of the trial Court, this revision has been preferred.

( 4 ) RELYING upon the authorities Kuppusamy Aiyar v. Muthusamy Aiyar, AIR 1915 mad 652; Nirmal Kumar Mitra v. Monoranjan Chatterjee, AIR 1955 Cal 192; Bagala sundari Devi v. Rivers Steam. Navigation Co. Ltd. , AIR 1934 Cal 640; Mt. Bibi khudai Jatul Kubra v. Mt. Bhagalan, AIR 1950 Pat 364 and Ram-das Sahu v. Ram chandra Sahu, AIR 1957 Pat 562 the learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the lower Court should not have rejected the petitioners application. He has further urged that the non-disclosure of the house property in the Schedule was not intentional, but was due to inadvertence.

( 5 ) IN AIR 1915 Mad 652 it was held that the non-disclosure of the property might be due to inadvertence and the value of the property also might not have affected the decision meaning thereby that even if it was shown from the very beginning in his assets, its value might not be significant. The case was therefore, remanded. In AIR 1955 Cal 192 it was held that the Court should find out the value of the property left and then should pass suitable order. In this case the applicant later on admitted that he had a ghar in Pakistan, which he did not include in the schedule attached to the application. In AIR 1934 Cal 640 the applicant applied for amending her application when her attention was drawn to the non-inclusion of a property which she inherited from a deceased son of hers. The lower Court disallowed the prayer for amendment. In revision the High Court held that the omission being inadvertent, the application for amendment should have been allowed. In AIR 1950 Pat 364 the estimated value of the property left was not brought on record and as such the case was remanded. In the last case AIR 1957 Pat 562 the application was filed by a person who had just come of age and who during his minority had been living with his sister. Because of the circumstances of the case the omission was held to be bona fide and inadvertent and, therefore, he was allowed to amend his application so as to include the properties left.

( 6 ) ON the other hand the lear