1. Pauperism of the non-applicants is challenged on the ground that they are occupying three rooms in a house which is a subject matter of the dipute can provide a source of money and that the trial Court did not take into consideration the fact that considerable money could be raised by mortgaging it.

2. Held: It is found that the non-applicants are occupying three rooms in the ground floor of house No. 302. The trial Court considered this fact of possession and interest in the property and the possibility of the Don-applicants being able to raise funds on the security. It is found that it would not be possible in view of the impending disputes as to the title and the small portion in their occupation. The two non applicants are minors and it is easy to see that no one would be willing to give Rs. 3,000 to the minors on such hazardous security. Reliance is however placed on Fakruddin and another v. Iqbal Ahmd and another (AIR 1957 All 680), which ruling only says that the property in possession of the pauper could' Dot be ignored, even if, it is the subject matter of litigation. Now, it would be a question of fact as to whether or not the non-applicants could in the cir