Venkatasubba Rao, J.

1. Horwill, J., made an order dis-paupering the appellant and its correctness is questioned in this Letters Patent Appeal.

2. The suit was filed by one Duraiswami in 1928 against the Court of Wards for the recovery of Marungapuri estate. He was allowed to institute the suit in forma pauperis, and died in 1929, and was succeeded by his son Ponnuswami, who brought himself on the record and continued the action. The suit was dismissed in 1930. Ponnuswami was allowed to file the appeal as a pauper and died in 1935 during its pendency. The present appellant Kayambu Pillai, being the executor under Ponnuswamis will was then brought on the record as his legal representative. The petition in question was filed by the Court of Wards to dispauper the appellant on the ground that his predecessors in interest, i.e., Duraiswami and Ponnuswami had entered into certain agreements of the kind contemplated1 by Clause (e) of Order 33, Rule 5, Civil Procedure Code.

3. The first question that arises is, whether the agreements, having regard to their nature, fall within the provision above mentioned, in other words, does a third party obtain under them an interest in the subje