The central legal point established in the judgment is that even if individuals possess valuable estate, they may still be considered paupers and allowed to file a suit in forma pauperis under certain circumstances.

Pakenham Walsh, J.

1. The petitioners before me are the two widows of one Sundaram Asari, who died in 1922.

2. By a will he left instructions that the widows should pay off the debts in E Schedule to the will by the outstandings due in D Schedule. In this matter the two sons of his two elder brothers were to assist them. Receipts were to be granted in the names of both the widows and the surplus invested in their names. He also contemplated that with this surplus lands should be purchased in the names of both the widows in which they should have a life-interest in equal shares.

3. The house and ground shown in A Schedule was similarly to be enjoyed by them in equal shares as a life-interest.

4. Widow No. 1 was to have B Schedule vessels and jewels, and widow No. 2 C Schedule vessels and jewels but again without power of alienation.

5. Till the immovable properties proposed to be purchased by the balance of outstandings were purchased, the widows were to realise in equal shares the interest from the surplus and use it for their maintenance.

6. The will in fact put the widows in no better position than they would have been in without it. They simply got a life-interest in the deceaseds property and nothing more.

7. They sought permission to file a suit in forma pauperis on a mortgage executed in 1916 to their deceased husband.

8. An enquiry into their pauperism was held. The Crown did not oppose but the Defendants objected and the claim was disallowed. Against the order the widows have preferred this revision petition.

9. The 1st Petitioner was the only witness examined on either side.

10. As regards the collection of outstandings the will mentions; outstandings of Rs. 3,650 (Schedule D) and debts of Rs. 1,215 (Schedule E).

11. Assuming that both were collected and paid out in full, the surplus would be Rs. 2,435.

12. The only immovable property purchased after the death of Sundaram Asari is a portion of a house under Ex. I for Rs. 1,000.

13. The 1st Petitioner has explained this purchase thus. There was a partition between her husband and his brothers and her husband had also purchased the share of his elder brother so that he was entitled to two shares. At the time of his death, however, he was in possession of only one share, the other share having been sold for a debt under a Court auction sale and being in the possession of third parties. On his death the widows resided in the share still possessed by their husband at his death, and subsequently they re-purchased the other share of the house under Ex. I.

14. The learned District Munsif found that the two shares are worth Rs. 2,000 on 1st Petitioners own evidence.

15. I have perused the sale deed Ex. I and it is clear that the whole purchase price consists of two debts due directly to the deceased Sundaram Asari so that none of it represents savings from the income of the estate made by the widows.

16. As regards utensils and jewels the 1st Petitioner was left such articles to the value of Rs. 345 and 2nd Petitioner to the value of Rs. 424, but 1st Petitioner has sworn that they have had to sell those articles to maintain themselves and are now paupers. There is no evidence contra. It will be noticed that even the sale of these jewels and utensils was beyond the power of the widows under the will.

17. The learned District Munsif refused to allow the pauper application, (1) because the Petitioners are in possession of sufficiently valuable estate left by Sundaram Asari; (2) the suit is filed on behalf of the estate and the estate is not a pauper.

18. With regard to ground (1) the possession is only that of persons with a life-interest on which it would be almost impossible to borrow any money. It is argued for Respondents that to save the estate necessary expenses may be incurred even by selling part of the property. I feel doubtful if any purchaser could be found to buy property under a title of this sort which the reversioners would be sure to attack. Rajagopala Gramani v. Baggiammal