JUDGMENT

Mackney, J - The applicant, Ma Nyun, applied in the District Court of Pyapon (Civil Miscellaneous Case No. 42 of 1933) for leave to sue in forma pauperis for partition and separate possession of a share, the suit being valued at Rs. 7,77,205-5-0 for court-fees and jurisdiction.

2. Ma Nyun's husband, Maung Sein, died in August 1932. He was a son of U Shwe Lin, who died in November 1932. The respondent, Ma Nu, is the daughter of U Shwe Lin by Daw E Mya, his first wife, who died some 33 years ago. Maung Sein is the son of U Shwe Lin by Daw Khet, whom U Shwe Lin married after the death of Daw E Mya some time in 1920--during the lifetime of Daw Khet--U Shwe Lin married as his third wife respondent 1 Ma Saw U. Ma Nyun claims that on the death of Daw Khet in 1924, Maung Sein acquired a vested right to half of the joint estate of his parents, and that on Maung Sein's death his rights devolved on Ma Nyun as his sole heir.

3. She further claims, in the alternative, that at the time of his death Maung Sein and she owned in their own right certain properties which she specifies. Her application was opposed by Ma Saw U and Ma Nu in a written objection drafted in a stereotyped form. They deny that Ma Nyun is a pauper; they allege that she had entered into an agreement with reference to the subject-matter of the proposed suit, under which certain persons have obtained an interest in such subject-matter, and they state that her application did not show a cause of action. The learned District Judge found that Ma Nyun was a pauper. He was of the opinion that she had entered into an agreement with reference to the subject-matter of the> proposed suit under which certain persons had obtained an interest in such subject-matter. He further held that she had no cause of action. Accordingly he dismissed her application with costs.

4. Ma Nyun has now applied in revision of this order. She contends that the District Court acted with material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction in holding that she had entered into an agreement of the type set out above without there being any evidence at all to that effect, and further, that it had acted with material irregularity in holding that "there is no allegation in the plaint that any of the properties are Maung Sein's", for it has ignored the alternative claim which is clearly set out in para. 8 of her petition. It appears to me that if these contentions can be established there would be ground for this Court to interfere in revision.

5. As regards the first point, the learned District Judge found that Ma Nyun must already have incurred very considerable expense in necessary preparations for filing her petition and had admitted that her brother, Maung Hlaing, had obtained money from one U Po Tet to enable him to get copies of kwin maps, history sheets of lands, etc. He then says:

It is clear that U Po Tet had advanced considerable sums of money in connexion with this case, and there are no documents to show that U Po Tet has only been lending out money at interest. U Po Tet was supplying funds to them, and has thus obtained an interest in the subject-matter of the suit.

6. Now, I have perused the evidence recorded in the case, and there is no statement anywhere which would show that Ma Nyun has entered into any agreement with U Po Tet whereby he has obtained an interest in the subject-matter of the proposed suit. The learned District Judge has merely guessed that U Po Tet would not have advanced money unless he had obtained such an interest. But it is a material irregularity to come to a finding which is based entirely on a guess. It seems, as a matter of fact, that U Po Tet has been known by Ma Nyun since she was a small girl and that he used to live in the same village with her parents. He is now living in Rangoon. It was quite natural for Ma Nyun to invoke his aid when she went up to Rangoon to get the best legal advice that she could. It is not right to assume that no man helps another unless