A court's finding on pauper status does not necessitate a precise property valuation if evidence suggests sufficient means.

1. These three rules arise out of the same order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge rejecting three applications filed by the petitioner in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Jorhat for leave to sue in forma pauperis. The relevant facts are that the petitioner Syed Abdul Latif filed three applications to sue the Union of India for three different sums of money, namely Rs. 7,096/-, Rs. 11,782/- and Rs. 35,027/8/- by three different suits as a pauper and three miscellaneous cases were registered on the basis of those applications which were dealt with by the same order of 16th April 1960.
The learned Subordinate Judge recorded the evidence as adduced by the petitioner and on an evaluation of the evidence adduced, the Court was satisfied that the petitioner had sufficient means at his disposal to sue and pay Court - fees for the reliefs as claimed and that he was not a pauper as defined under R.1 of O.33, Civil Procedure Code . The Court found as a matter of fact that within a few years previous to the institution of the suit the petitioner had received from the Railway itself of which he was an employee, a sum of Rs. 6,854/- and that he had certain landed properties including houses in Pakistan where his son and the wife lived. The Court came to a definite finding that the petitioner was not a pauper as defined in the Code and accordingly rejected the three applications filed by him for institution of the three suits as mentioned above.

2. Mr. Goswami for the petitioner has contended before me that the Court had to find the exact value of the property that the petitioner had and that without such a finding the order refusing leave to sue in forma pauperis is bad. In support of this contention he relied on the decision of the Patna High Court reported in Mt. Bibi Khudai Jatul Kubra v. Mt. Bhagalan , AIR 1950 Pat 364 . The facts in that particular case might justify the observation on which Mr. Goswami relies, but in the present case the finding in my opinion is quite adequate to hold that the petitioner had sufficient means at his disposal and therefore the Court was right in not giving him the liberty to sue as a pauper where ho had sufficient property at his disposal.
I am not prepared to hold that the Court is to arrive at a categorical finding as to the value of the property that the petitioner had at the time. There might not be a true disclosure as in this case. In this case it was patent that the petitioner gave no estimate of the valuation of the property that he had in Pakistan and therefore if the Court was of opinion that the petitioner was not a pauper, - this is a finding which cannot be challenged in an application under S.115 of the Civil Procedure Code , inasmuch as proper procedure was followed and the Court had come to a finding on the basis of the evidence as recorded by it. In my opinion therefore, the contention has no substance and the three rules must be discharged, which I do accordingly. In the circumstances of the case however, I make no order for costs.
Rule Discharged.