A plaintiff who applies to sue in forma pauperis must include all of their property in the schedule of property annexed to the application, as required by Order 33 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908.

G. K. MISRA, J.

( 1 ) PLAINTIFF (opp. party no. 1) filed a Title Suit valued at Rs. 9600/- on which a court-fee of Rs. 1086/- was payable. She filed an application to sue in forma pauperis alleging that the total property belonging to her would be worth Rs. 240/. The defendants contested the pauperism and took a specific plea that plaintiff was in actual possession and enjoyment of one-third of the property inherited by her from her mother in her own right, title and interest. Plaintiff's interest would be about 7 acres and odd yielding an income of Rs. 1000/- per annum. The learned Subordinate Judge, Bargarh, came to the conclusion that plaintiff No. 1 was not in possession of the property she inherited from her mother. On that finding he held that she had no sufficient means to pay the requisite court-fee and allowed her application to sue in forma pauperis. Against this order, the civil revision has been filed.

( 2 ) MR. Sinha contends that the learned Subordinate Judge has recorded no finding that the Opposite Party No. 1 has no interest in the properties inherited by her from her mother and his finding that she was not in possession of those properties was contrary to the evidence on record and is based on a wrong notion of law that the draft record of rights is not admissible in evidence. Mr. Misra, on the other hand, contends that whatever may be the error the Subordiante Judge might have committed, this Court cannot interfere with it in revision and further the lower court's order substantially involves the question of court-fee which can be assailed only by the State and not by the petitioners. These contentions require careful consideration.

( 3 ) THE contention of Mr. Sinha that the learned Subordinate Judge has not recorded any finding regarding extinguishment of plaintiff's title in her mother's property is not disputed by Mr. Misra. The learned Subordinate Judge exercised his jurisdiction illegally in over-looking the provision of Order 33 Rule 2, C. P. C. which runs thus :

"every application for permission to sue as a pauper shall contain the particulars required in regard to plaints in suits: a schedule of any movable or immovable property belonging to the applicant, with the estimated value thereof, shall be annexed thereto; and it shall be signed and verified in the manner prescribed for the signing and verification of pleadings. " It would thus be clear that it was the paramount duty of the plaintiff to include her share of the mother's property in the schedule. She ought to have asserted in the application that there was extinguishment of her title in those properties and the properties were no longer available to her. The pauper application did not contain such an averment. Even in her evidence in Court she does not clearly and unambiguously assert that she has no interest in those properties. Her evidence is:

"i permitted my sister Para to enjoy the entire properties of my mother. I have executed any (no?) document in bv our of my sister Para. I have not permitted Para but permitted my sister Jai to enjoy my mother's land. I have not asked my sister Jai and her son to give me back my share of mother's land. There is no document to this effect. "

xx xx xx

"i have no interest whatsoever in my mother's properties. I am not in need of enjoying my mother's properties and hence 1 say that I have no interest therein. I have not permitted my sister Jai to enjoy my mother's properties".

( 4 ) HER evidence is not unequivocal and is shaky. There is no corroboration. This statement has been challenged by defendant No. 1 (D. W. 1 ). That apart, relinquishment of property of the value of more than Rs. 100 can be made only by a registered document. Taking the entire matter into consideration, there can be no escape from the conclusion that the plaintiff has substantive title and interest in 7 acres and odd of land which she inherited from her mother. As admittedly she did not mention this item of the properties in the