Ramesam, J.

1. In this case the present two respondents who are brothers were allowed to sue as paupers in the Court below. Respondent 4 in the lower Court (present petitioner) his filed this revision petition. Mr. Muthuswami Ayyar who appeared for the petitioner here argued that as it appears from the evidence of the present respondent 1 that the respondents are entitled to a certain mortgage on which they have already filed a suit in the Mayavaram Court for Rs. 600 odd, they should not be considered to be paupers. The court-fee required for this suit is more than Rs. 200. It is clear that the plaintiffs have no other property besides the claim on the above mortgage in the Mayavaram Court. In that Court they were allowed to sue as paupers. Mr. Muthuswami Ayyar relies on the decision in Kapil Deo Singh v. Ram Rikha Singh (1911) 33 All. 237, where it was held that in a suit for; redemption if it can be shown that the plaintiff can raise money on his equity of redemption he cannot be allowed to sue as a pauper. I agree. But until it is shown that he can raise money I think it follows that he is a pauper. The plaintiff has formally to say that he is unable to raise money on the