Possession assessment for pauper status must exclude amounts forming the subject matter of the suit.

1. This revision petition is filed against the order dated 19-3-60, of the Subordinate Judge in petition No.17 (Pauper) of 1959 by which he rejected the prayer of the petitioner to permit him to sue as a pauper.

2. The petitioner who was engaged as a sub-contractor by the respondents, the main contractors under the Government, for transporting Government rice from Pakistan Railway station to India, presented the plaint in the suit for realisation of Rs.30,000/- alleged to be due to him as transport charges etc. In paragraph 18 of the plaint, he alleged that the respondents made him write out 4 receipts bearing different dates on Pakistani revenue stamps on 10-9-56 for a total amount of Rs.15,150/-on the plea that they wanted those receipts to get the transport charges fixed by the Government and that the money under the receipts will be paid on the respondents' getting payment from the Government. He denied that any consideration passed on those receipts.
In paragraph 18 of his plaint, the pefitioner further alleged that the respondents ultimately asked him to appear before them with the books of account and the petitioner without any suspicion handed over all his papers, but that the respondents did not reader any account or return the petitioner's papers. The petitioner stated in his application for permission to sue in forma pauperis that ho had no capacity to pay the court fee, that he was not possessed of any immoveable property but only of moveable properties worth Rs.37/-.
The respondents contested the petition and stated that it was a frivolous suit, that the petitioner has received full payment of his dues from the respondents by giving receipts, that he was possessed of immoveable property worth Rs.3,000/- to Rs.5,000/- besides cash money amounting to several thousands of rupees and further that the petitioner and his father living in joint mess have jointly and separately sufficient moveable and immoveable properties to pay the Court fee.

3. Notice was given to the Government. But the Government did not enter appearance or contest the pauperism of the petitioner.

4. In support of his petition, the petitioner examined himself and another witness. The respondents did not adduce any oral evidence. In the cross - examination of the petitioner, the respondents put to him 5 receipts Exts.D - 1 to D - 1(d) on Pakistan revenue stamps given by the petitioner for Rs.3,900/-, Rs.3,750/-, Rs.5250/-, Rs.2,250/- and Rs.1,725/-. The receipts are in August and September 1956. The petitioner admitted giving the receipts, but stated that he did not receive any money for the said receipts. It is not known how the Subordinate Judge admitted the said receipts in evidence without collecting the necessary penalty as required under S.35, Proviso (b) of the Indian Stamp Act. The respondents produced a letter Ext.D - 2 written by the petitioner to one Nitya Babu (not a party to the petition) in which he had asked the said Nitya Babu on 30-9-56 to send Rs.86/- to him towards some dues. The petitioner admitted receiving the said sum of Rs.86/- The petitioner also admitted in evidence that his father had a business formerly which was closed and that his father was possessed of property. It was suggested to him that the properties in the name of his father were purchased with the petitioner's money. But he denied it. The petitioner gave evidence that he was not possessed of means to pay the Court fee. The petitioner's witness P.W.2 also staled so.

5. On this evidence, the learned Subordinate Judge