Proper course for application to sue in forma pauperis.

Petitioner is the first respondent in a petition by the two plaintiffs for permission to sue in forma pauperis. The petition was resisted on the ground that the contemplated suit was bad for misjoinder of parties and causes of action. The learned Additional Subordinate Judge after finding that the would-be plain-tiffs were paupers took the view that the suit was not bad for misjoinder and directed the plaint to be registered as a suit. No appearance has been made by the respondents here despite personal service.

The respondents are, the father, the would-be first plaintiff" and his natural son, the would-be second plaintiff. They sued to recover the self-acquired property of one Marimuthu Pandithar, who died in 1933, on the basis that he had adopted the second respondent in 1925. The first respondent asks in the contemplated suit, in the event of his natural son’s adoption being negatived for recovery of possession on the ground that he is the nearest reversioner of a son Alanganathan, who was born to Marimuthu Pandithar by a third wife whom he married subsequent to his adoption of the second defendant. The two defendants in the contemplated suit are Marimuthu Pandithar’s wife’s brother and alienee of a portion of the suit property from him. The former claims under a settlement deed of the year 1947 executed in his favour by Alanganathan who died subsequently.

As it appears to me, the contemplated suit seeks to mingle two entirely different causes of action, (1) the adoption of the second petitioner in which the first petitioner has in law no interest, and (2) the reversionership claim of the first petitioner based on the setting aside of the alleged settlement deed by Alanganathan in 1947 which would be the main issue for determination in the event of the adoption not being established. The learned Subordinate Judge followed the decision in M.A.Velappa Nadar v. Chidambara Nadar1, and a Bombay decision Fakrappa v. Rudrappa2. In the Madras decision by Venkatasubba Rao, J., four plaintiffs joined in a suit with a clear community of interest namely to recover moneys and jewels in the possession of the first defendant. Though it transpired that there were disputes as between the plaintiffs inter se as regards their respective rights in the suit property they did not seek for a resolution of those rights in the suit and as members of a family sought to recover possession from the first defendant who is alleged to have unlawfully retained the property. The common question of fact there was the defendant’s wrongful withholding of the moneys in dispute. That case is not on all fours with the present case. In the Bombay Bench decision no objection was taken in the trial Court on the ground of misjoinder, which the lower appellate Court allowed to be successfully taken for the first time and remanded the suit for an amendment of the plaint. The learned Bench reversed the remand order primarily on the ground that objection for misjoinder was not taken in the trial Court as required by section gg of the Civil Procedure Code. It was also held in that case in which the plaintiffs were a widow and an alleged adopted son who filed a claim in execution of some property in attachment, that as the widow admitted the adoption of the other plaintiff, the claims were in no way antagonistic and they were both jointly interested in disproving defendants’ title. There is no such community of interest as between the plaintiffs so far as their causes of action are concerned which are quite distinct, antagonistic and separate, although on broad grounds the father and his natural son may be said to be seeking what alternative remedies they can on two different legal bases.

Order 33, Civil Procedure Code, does not specifically provide any procedure when the contemplated plaint discloses misjoinder of parties and causes of action. The learned advocate urges that this ground is partly covered by the Order 33 rule 5(d-1) which requires a pauper applicati