This proceeding in revision is directed against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge of Kumbakonam in O.P. No. 5 of 1959, permitting the petitioner in the Court below to sue in forma pauperis.

The learned Subordinate Judge correctly stated that the short point for consideration was whether the petitioner had the necessary means to pay the Court-fee due on the plaint. The oral evidence is within a very short compass. I see from the records that an objection was filed by the State, in which it was affirmed that the petitioner in the Court below owned certain properties and trees, which -would have enabled him to pay the Court-fee. The learned Judge was apparently unwilling to act upon the evidence of the karnam of Arayapuram (R.W. 1) and of the karnam of Papanasam (R.W. 2) ,who spoke about the properties possessed by the petitioner in the Court below. It is not clear why precisely the learned Subordinate Judge came to the conclusion that the petitioner did not have the means to pay the Court-fee in this particular case. The learned Judge correctly states the law that the fact that the petitioner might attempt to raise credit or a loan by the alienation of items formin