# VIJAY PRATAP SINGH v. DUKH HARAN NATH SINGH AND ANOTHER

- **Citation:** [1962] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 675
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1962
- **Bench:** S. K. DAs, M. Hidayatullah, J. C. Shah
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/vijay-pratap-singh-v-dukh-haran-nath-singh-and-another-2335
- **Pages:** 12

## Headnote

Suit-Application to sue in forma pauperia-Courts jurisdiction-Application for bei"9 tranaposed as plaintiff-If could
be rejected on the ground that the claim made in original petition
ia perBOnal-Oodt of Civil Procedure, 1908: (V of 1908) 0. J.
rr. 1, JO, 0, SS, r. S(a).
The Estate of Maharaja Man Singh of Ayodhya Raj
devolved on his death successively on his two widows and
thereafter, according to V the plaintiff a minor on his grandfather G, who died in 1942. Respondent claimed the estate
as adopted son of the junior.widow of the Maharaja. V filed a
petition for leave to sue in forma pauperis for declaration of
title to the estate making his father R a party. The plaintiff's
petition was rtjected by the Subordinate Judge, on the ground
that it disclosed no cause of action. R's application to be
transposed as petitioner was also rejected. V and R preferred
revision applications to the High Court of Allahabad.
The
plaintiff's application was rejected by the High Court holding
inter alia that there was nothing in the petition to show that
G succeeded to the estate as the nearest male reversioner of
the last male holder. R's application was rejected by the
High Court on the ground that relief in a11 application to sue
in Jorma fl'.lupt,ria is personal to the applicant and nobody
else can be made a co-applicant, because I, R. JO of the Code
of Civil Procedure does. not apply to a proceeding for permisoion to sue as a pauper.
Ht Id, that 0. XXXIII of the Code of Civil Procedure
lays down the procedure . for institution of a suit by pauper.
By cl. 5 (d) the court is required to ascertain whether the
allegation made in the petition show a cause of action , but it
does not enter upon a trial of the issues affecting the merits of
th.e claim made by the petitioner. .By the statute, the jurisdiction of the Court is restricted to ascertaining whether on the
allegations a cause of action is shown : the jurisdiction does
not extended to trial of issues which must fairly be left for
decision at the hearing of the suit.
~n application to sue in forma pauperis, is but a method
prescribed by the Code for institution of a suit by a pauper
~ithout payment o~ C'!~t fee ; and there is nothing personal
m such an application. The suit commences from the
IHI!
YfM1 -P B"'l"
••
N.\H-N1•1'
s;,,,r.
6""' J.
676 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962] SUPP.
moment an application for permission to sue in forma pauper is
as required by 0. 33 of the Code is presented, and 0. I r. 10.
of the Code would be aS much applicable in such a suit as in a
suit in which Court fee had been duly paid. A person who
claims to join a petitioner praying .for leave to sue in forma
pauperis must himself be a pauper. Claim to join Ly transposition as an applicant must be investigated ; it is not liable
to be rejected on the ground that the claim made by the
original applicant is personal to himself.
Crvu, APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals
Noe. 253 and 254 of 1961.
Appeals by special leave from the judgment
and order dated May 2, 1955, of the Allahabad High
Court in Civil Revision Nos. 881 and 882 of 1952.
S. F. Andley, R<l'fM.Yhtcar Nath and P. L. Jl'ohra,
for the appellant in C. A. No. 253 of 1961 and
respondent No. 2 in C. A. No. 254 of 1961.
8. P. Varma, for the appellant in C.A. No. 254
of 61 and respondent No. 2 in C.A. No. 253 of 1961.
C. B. Aggarwal<I and C. P. Lal,, for the respon·
dent No. I in both the appeals.
19!i2. January 19. The Judgment of the
Court was delivered by
Sa.ur, J.-Vijay PratapSingh(hereinafter ealled
the plaintiff) a minor-by his next friend Pandit Brij
Mohan llfisir filed a petition in the Court of the
Subordinate Judge. Fa.izabad for leave to sue in
for111a pauper·i8 for declaration of title
to the
Ajodhya. Raj and accretions thereto and for p011868sion and mesne profits for three yea.rs prior to the
suit. The petition was rejected by the Subordinate
Judge because, in his view, it disclosed no ca.me of
action. An application by Ramjiwa.n Misir father
of

## Text

2 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
675
VIJAY PRATAP SINGH
v.
DUKH HARAN NATH SINGH AND ANOTHER
(And Connected Appeal)
(S. K. DAs, M. HIDAYATULLAH and J. C. SHAH, JJ.)
Suit-Application to sue in forma pauperia-Courts jurisdiction-Application for bei"9 tranaposed as plaintiff-If could
be rejected on the ground that the claim made in original petition
ia perBOnal-Oodt of Civil Procedure, 1908: (V of 1908) 0. J.
rr. 1, JO, 0, SS, r. S(a).
The Estate of Maharaja Man Singh of Ayodhya Raj
devolved on his death successively on his two widows and
thereafter, according to V the plaintiff a minor on his grandfather G, who died in 1942. Respondent claimed the estate
as adopted son of the junior.widow of the Maharaja. V filed a
petition for leave to sue in forma pauperis for declaration of
title to the estate making his father R a party. The plaintiff's
petition was rtjected by the Subordinate Judge, on the ground
that it disclosed no cause of action. R's application to be
transposed as petitioner was also rejected. V and R preferred
revision applications to the High Court of Allahabad.
The
plaintiff's application was rejected by the High Court holding
inter alia that there was nothing in the petition to show that
G succeeded to the estate as the nearest male reversioner of
the last male holder. R's application was rejected by the
High Court on the ground that relief in a11 application to sue
in Jorma fl'.lupt,ria is personal to the applicant and nobody
else can be made a co-applicant, because I, R. JO of the Code
of Civil Procedure does. not apply to a proceeding for permisoion to sue as a pauper.
Ht Id, that 0. XXXIII of the Code of Civil Procedure
lays down the procedure . for institution of a suit by pauper.
By cl. 5 (d) the court is required to ascertain whether the
allegation made in the petition show a cause of action , but it
does not enter upon a trial of the issues affecting the merits of
th.e claim made by the petitioner. .By the statute, the jurisdiction of the Court is restricted to ascertaining whether on the
allegations a cause of action is shown : the jurisdiction does
not extended to trial of issues which must fairly be left for
decision at the hearing of the suit.
~n application to sue in forma pauperis, is but a method
prescribed by the Code for institution of a suit by a pauper
~ithout payment o~ C'!~t fee ; and there is nothing personal
m such an application. The suit commences from the
IHI!
YfM1 -P B"'l"
••
N.\H-N1•1'
s;,,,r.
6""' J.
676 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962] SUPP.
moment an application for permission to sue in forma pauper is
as required by 0. 33 of the Code is presented, and 0. I r. 10.
of the Code would be aS much applicable in such a suit as in a
suit in which Court fee had been duly paid. A person who
claims to join a petitioner praying .for leave to sue in forma
pauperis must himself be a pauper. Claim to join Ly transposition as an applicant must be investigated ; it is not liable
to be rejected on the ground that the claim made by the
original applicant is personal to himself.
Crvu, APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals
Noe. 253 and 254 of 1961.
Appeals by special leave from the judgment
and order dated May 2, 1955, of the Allahabad High
Court in Civil Revision Nos. 881 and 882 of 1952.
S. F. Andley, R<l'fM.Yhtcar Nath and P. L. Jl'ohra,
for the appellant in C. A. No. 253 of 1961 and
respondent No. 2 in C. A. No. 254 of 1961.
8. P. Varma, for the appellant in C.A. No. 254
of 61 and respondent No. 2 in C.A. No. 253 of 1961.
C. B. Aggarwal<I and C. P. Lal,, for the respon·
dent No. I in both the appeals.
19!i2. January 19. The Judgment of the
Court was delivered by
Sa.ur, J.-Vijay PratapSingh(hereinafter ealled
the plaintiff) a minor-by his next friend Pandit Brij
Mohan llfisir filed a petition in the Court of the
Subordinate Judge. Fa.izabad for leave to sue in
for111a pauper·i8 for declaration of title
to the
Ajodhya. Raj and accretions thereto and for p011868sion and mesne profits for three yea.rs prior to the
suit. The petition was rejected by the Subordinate
Judge because, in his view, it disclosed no ca.me of
action. An application by Ramjiwa.n Misir father
of the plaintiff who was imp~eaded as the second
defendant, to be transposed as a petitiouer was also
rejected by the Subordinate Judge. The plaintiff
and Ra.mjiwan Misir applied to the High Court of
Judicature
at
Allahabad
in the exercise of it.I
revisiona.1 jurisdiction against the orders rejecting
28.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPGRTS
677
their respective petitions but without success. They
have with special leave appealed to this Court
against the orders passed by the High Court,
The case set up by the plaintiff in his pet.ition
was briefly this. Maharaja Sir Man Singh bolder
of the Ajodhya Raj was a Taluqdar in lists I, II
and V of the Oudh states set I of 1869. He died
in 1870 and the Raj devolved upon his daughter's
son M:iharaja Pratap Narain Singh, who died on
Novemhrr \J, 1!106, leaving him surviving
two
widows Suraj Kumari and Jagdamba Devi and no
line111 desc"udant. A will alleged to be executed
by Maharaja Pratap Narain Singh on July 20, 1891,
was set up but. it was void and ineffective bPcause,
firstly, it was procnn>d by undue influence, coercion
and frau<l practised upon the tes'tater, and, secondly
it created a line of successi.;m contrary to law.
Accordingly on the death ot M:iharaja Pratap
Narain tlingh th<< Raj devolved upon Maharani
Suraj Kumari the senior widow aud on her death in
19:!7 upon ,\!nharani Jugdamba Devi, and on the
death of the latter on June 18, 1928 upon Ganga
Dutt Misir, ~rand father of the plaintiff Ganga Dutt
Misir died in 1942 and the estate devolved upon
his son Ramjiwan and his grandson, the plaintiff
as co-parceners in a Hindu joint family. Even if
the will was valid and effective "the terms thereof
alongwith Mabaraja Pratap Singh's other acts and
declarations" had the effect of taking the estate out
of the purview of Act I of 1869 with the result that
Maharani Jagdama Devi enjoyed the propertyin
suit with a life estate therein, and on her death on
,June 18, 1938, the entire property in suit v11sted in
Ganga Dlltt on whose death the plaintiff and defendant No. 2 became owners of the entire property in
suit aR their joint ancestral property". Defendant
No.I Dukh Haran Singh claimed to be adopted as a
son by Jagdamba Devi on February 12, 1909 but,
the claim was ''utterly false, fictitious and untrue"
for the reasons set out in the partition, and the
196'
Vija_, Pr .. SO.,A
v.
Dulllr H.,.,. N••A
s;,,p
Shah J.
liq
Y1i91'r-~
..
~H-Be4
8 ....
sw1.
678 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1962] SUPP.
Raj was in the wrongful possession of the firdt
defendant Dukh Haran Singh.
The plaintiff
alleged
that
his
father
Ramjiwan Misir was "detained and confined" by the
first defendant and was unable to join the plaintiff
in the petition.
The finit defendant Dukh Haran Singh resisted
the petition inter alia contending that it did not
discloee a caUBe of action and that, in any event,
the claim made by the plaintiff was barred by law
of limitation.
Initially Ram Jiwan Misir supported the will
and the plea of adoption set up by the first
defendant, but by an application dated April ;!l,
1951, prayod that he be transposed as a p~titioner
submitting that his previous statement was procured
by coercion and co?ll,aincd avermenta which were
untrue. Ramjiwan was directed to pay the court
fee payable on the phint within ten days and in
default or payment, his application wa.a to stand
tlismilllle<l.
Ramjiwan did not pay the oourt fee as
directed hut 011 July 23, 1051, he again applied for
being transposed n.s a petitioner in the petition for
leave to sue in fornui pauperis filed by tne plaintiff.
Holding that it di,! not disclose a cause of action
the
Subordinate Judge rejccte<i
the
petition
of
the
plaintiff.
The
Subordinate
Judge
observed that there wa~ nothing in the petition to
show how the disputed estate came to be governed
by the rule of inheritance under tho Hindu Law
and, in any event, there was nothing in the petition
to support the pica that the estate had lost its irn ·
p~rtible character, and that even if in view of the
allegations contained in para 12 of the petition it
be hold that the estato came to be governed by
the ordinary Hindu Law, it did not become a pnr·
tible eBtatc which tho plantiff could inherit, so long
at his father Ra.mjiwan we.s alive. The petition
filed hy Hamjiwan Misir was then taken np for
•
2 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
679
hearing and was also rejected because, in the view
of the learned Judge, "no useful purpose would be
served" by transposing Ram Jiwan Misir as coplantiff when the application filed by the plantift'
was held to be defective and liable to be rejected
under 0. 3-3, r. 5( d), of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Against the two orders pa.s~ed by the subordinate Judge the plaintiff preferred Revision Application No. 881 of 1952 and Ram Jiwan preferred
Revision Petition 882 of_ 1952. The High Court
rejected the petition of the plaintiff holding that on
the death of Ganga Dutt in 1942 the estate would
devolve upon Ram Ji wan ;Misir ·alone according to
the rule of impartibility whi'oh governed the devolution of the estate. The High Covrt also observed
that there was nothing in the petition to show that
Ganga Dutt succeeded to the estate "on the basis
of his being th9 nearest male reversioner under the
Ordinary Hindu Law", and that it was unnecessary
to consider
whether
the will by Maha.ra.ja
Pratap .\a.rain took out the estate from
the
operation of the Act, "because the plaintiff did not
rely upon the will and whatever the plaintiff had
stated in the petition in connection with the will
was simply by way of answer to what might be
_ contended by the defendant in the suit." Dealing
with the petition of Ram Jiwan Misir the High
Court observed that "By an application to BUe in
forrrw. pauperis the applicant prays for a relief
personal to himself and therefore nobody else ean
be properly made a co-applicant. There is no
direct provision which provides that a court should
transpose a party from one side to the other. Order
I, r. 10, gives the power to the court to strike out or
add the names of parties when it appears that he
has been improperly j'lined or that he ought to have
been joined or his presence
be~ore the court would
be neoelll!ary in order to enfl.ble ,the court effectively
and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the
questions involved in the suit, The provisions of
IHI
Yjjli7 ,,,.,,, BiaP
v,
Dvldt_H.,,. Nall
B;,,;t
Slutlt J.
-
r,7., ,.,_, .~;.,•
...
DoMB-lfdA
5'qlo
Sholl J,
680 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962] SUPP.
this rule will not apply to the procet1dings on an
application for permission to sue as a pauper''.
We are unable to agree with the view of the
High Court that the petition filed by the plaintiff
did not disclose a cause of action, or that 0. I, r. IO
of the Codo of Civil Procedure cannot properly be
resorted Lo for transposing a party in a petition for
leave to sue in forma pauperis. The plaintiff had
by his plaint set up an alternative C&Be. In the first
instance, he
pleaded that the will alleged to be
executed by Maharaja Pratap Narain on July 20,
1891, was "void and ineffective" and the estate
devolved upon Ram Jiwan and the plaintiff as
mombers
of a copareenary: alternatively,
he
ploaded that Aven if the will was valid, by the terms
thereof and by the other acts and declaration of
Maharaja Pratap Narain Singh, the estate was
taken out "of the purview uf Act I of 1869" and on
the death of Maharani JagJnmha Devi the property
devolved upon
Ganga Dut.t, the nearest reversioner under tho Hindu lnw and on his death it
devolved upon the plaintiff and upon his father
Ram Jiwan Misir.
Order XXXIII of the Code of Civil Pro<'A>elure
prescribcH thtJ procedure for indtitutio11 of •Uitri by
paupers. ltule 2 provides that particulal's a petition
for permission to sue infvrmc1pauperi-<I shall contain
aud r.3 sets out the mode of presentation of, the petition. Rule 4 authorises the Court to examine the
applicant or his agcnt regarding the merits of the
case and the property oft.he applicant. ltulc 5 provides:
"Thc Court ~he.II rejeet an appli1·atio11 for
pnmission to siw ns a pauper-
(a)
where
it is not. framt'<l ancl
prcsentcd in
the ruannn 111·•·H•'ril1rd hy
rulos ~and :i, or
(b)
whcro
the applirant iH nut a
pauper, or
~ i'.l.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
681
( e) where he has, within two months
next before the presentation of the application, disposed of any property fraudulently or in order to be able to apply for
permission to sue as a pauper, or
( d) where his allegations do not show
a cause of action, or
( e) where he has entered into any
agreement with reference to the subject
matter of the proposed suit under which
any other person has obtained an interest
in 1mch subject matter."
Where the appli('ation is not rejected on the grounds
set out in r. :i, the Court has under r. 6, to proceed,
after giving notire to the c•pposite party and the
Government pleader, to receive evidence as the
applicant may adduce in proof of his pauperiam. By
r. 7 the Court is authorised to consider where the
applicant is not subjcc·t to any of the prohibitions
specified in r. 5. The Court is enjoined to reject a
petition wht're the prohibitions mentioned in els. (a)
to ( e) of r.
5.
exist. Even if the petition is not
so rejr~cted ttt the hearing of the petition, if the
court is satisfied as to the existence of these prohibitions it m1iy be dismissed under r. 7.
It does not appear that any objection was
raised as to the existence of prohibitions (c) and (d)
set out in r. 5, and the Subordinate Judge disallowed the oujection that the petition was not
framed and presented as prescribed by r. 2 and 3.
He did not consider the question whether the plaintiff was a pauper.. He reject~d the application only
on the ground that it did not show a cause of
action, and the High Court ~onfirmed the order
also on that ground. By the express terms of
r. 5 cl. ( d), the court is concerned to ascertain
whether the allc•gntions made in the petition show a
cause of action.
Tho court has not to see whether
the claim made by the petitioner is likely to
l96B
Yij•y Prll¥ SifwA·
v.
Ddli Hor., N•llo
oiinth
Shdl·
JM2
Vfl<p l'rat¥ s;.,~
v.
DwM B..u N.ilr.
Silltl
BWJ.
682 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962) SUPP,
succeed: it has merely to satisfy itself that the
allegations made in the petition, if accepted as
true, would entitle the petitioner to the relief he
claims. If &coepting those allegations as true no
case is made out for granting relief no cause of
action would be shown and the petition must be
rejected. But in aaoertaining whether the petition
shows a cause of action the court does not enter
upon a trial of the issues affecting the merits of the
claim made by the petitioner. It cannot take into
consideration the defences which the defendant may
raise upon the merits; nor is the courJ; competent
to make an elaborate enquiry into doubtful or
complicated questions of law or fact. If the
allegations in the petition, prima facie,
show a
cause or action, the court cannot embark upon an
enquiry whether the allegations are true in fact, or
whether the petitioner will succeed in the claims
made by him.
By the Statute, the jurisdiction of
the Court is ~estrictcd to ascertaining whether on
the allegations a cause
of action is shown: the
jurisdiction doPJJ not extend to trial of issues which
must fairly he left for decision at the boa.ring of the
suit.
We do not propose to expr088 any opinion on
the question whether on the doath of Jagdamba
Devi the estate devolved under H.
22( I 0) of Act I
of 18G9 upon Ramjiwan Misir and the plaintiff as
members of a coparcena.ry.
Even if that claim is
inconsist,.nt with the words of s.
22(101 of Act I of
18G9 on which the plaintiff him~colf rrlics, the plaintiff bad an altcrnativ" claim that the estate had
become non·talnq<lari by virtue of the will and "the
acts and declaration" nf !\faharnja Pratap Narain.
In support of this claim, s. Hi. of Act I of 1869,
before it wa.11
nm<'nclNl
by U. P. Act ITI of l!l!O,
is relied upon. At the time- when l\Taharaja Pratap
Narain died, s. 15 of the Act stood ;is follows:-
"If nnv taluqdar or grantee Hhall heretobefore ha.ve transferred or bequeathed, or if
2 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
683
any taluqdar or grantee or his heir or legatee
shall hereafter transfer or bequeath, to any
person not being a taluqdar or grantee the
whole or any portion of his estate, and such
person would not have succeeded according to
the provisions of this Act to the estate or to a
portion thereof if the transferor or testator had died without 'having made the transfer
and intestate, the transfer of and succession
to the property so transferred or bequeathed
shall be regulated by the rules which would
have governed the transfer of and succession
to such property ifthe transferree or legatee
had brought the same from a person not being
a taluqdar or grantee."
It is true that bys. 8 of Act III of 1910, the section
has been substantially modified and reads as
follows:-
"If any taluqdar or grantee, or his heir or
legatee, shall heretofore have transferred or
bequeathed, or if any taluqdar or grantee, or
his heir or legatee, shall hereafter transfer or
bequeath the whole or any portion of his
estate to any person who did not at the time
when the transfer or bequest took effect
belong to any of the classes specified in
section 14, the transfer of and succession to
the property so trarn1ferred or bequeathP.d
shall be regulated by the rules which would
have governed the transfer of and succession
to such property if the transferee or legatee
had bought the same from a person not being
a taluqdar or grantee, heir or legatee."
, By s. 21 of the Amending Act III of 1910 a partial
retrospective operation was given to the amended
section. The retrospective operation was limited
by the proviso which enacted that nothing contained in tho amending section
~hall affect suits
pending 11t the commencement of the amending
1962
l'ijay Prol•P Singh
v.
Dukh H.,..,. Hoth
Sinfli
Shah J,
lfll2
rifa.7 l'r~ Singh
y,
lltMi H•• Noth
BitrcA
SMA 1.
684 SUPRE.ME COURT REPORTS [1962) SUPP.
Act, or shall bo deemed to vest in or confer
upon any yorsun any right or title to any rstate. or
an:i; P.ort1on thereof, or any
intcrrst therein,
which 1s, at the commencement of the Amending
Act, vest<id in any other person who would have
been entitled to rntain the same if the amending
Act had not been passed, and the right or title of
such other person shall not be affected by anything
contained in the said section.
Mr. Agarwalla, appearing on behalf of tho
first dcfendrnt Oukh Haran Ringh, has contended
that in vit1w of the retrospective oporation given
to s. lei, as amende1l, the claim of the plaintiff
that the taluqdari character of the 8tate is 1lestroyed
has no force and he ha.H invit<'d our attention to two
decisions of tho Oudh Chief Court in Kmu Nage.•har
Salwi v.
Shiam
Rrilw/"Ur (') and .l1o/u1mmud
Ali /\/urn v . .\'i.mr Ali /\/um(').
But we m•Pd express
no opinion on tho correetnesH or otherwiHo of these
decisionH.
An enquiry whothor by virtue of certain
provision~ of the statute on which th<' first defendant rolies, tlw plaintiff mll.y not. be entitled to t.ho
estate i~. ,., already observed, not cont<'m.J?latcd
to be mach· in considering >\ petition for !Pave to sue
in fnr111a 1ifmpcri.•.
The trne c·ffec·t. of thn amrnded
section Iii of the Oudh Estat.<'S Aet I of l 869 is a
complioatcd question of law which the Court will
not proceed to determine in ascertaining whether
the petition for leavt' tu sue discloses 11. cause of
action.
The High Court, in our judgment, was in
error in observing that t.h<'re WM nothing in the
plaint to show that Oanga Dutt succ·cec!Nl to the
estate bec,'l.use he was th<' nell.rcst malo revnrsioncr
under the or<iinary Hin<iu law. Thr plaintiff has
emphntically mnde that assertion:
whether the
claim to relief on the• b1iois of that :\ssertion was
justified must be adjudicated at the trial of tho suit,
f.!)
A.l.R. Jli:!t: <h1Jh. ti7.
2 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
685
and not in deciding whether the plaintiff should be
permitted to sue in fomw pauperis.
We are also of the view that the High Court
was in error in holding that by an application to
sue in Jorrn11 pauper-is, the applicant prays for relief
personal to himself. An application to sue in
Jorrnn pauperis. is but a method prescribed by the
Code for institution of a suit by a pauper without
payment of fee prescribed by the Court Fees Act.
If the claim made by the applicant that he is a
pauper is not establish the application may fail.
But there is nothing personal in such an application. The suit commences from the moment an
application for permission to sue in forma pa'l),peris
as required by 0. 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure
is presented, and O. l, r. 10, of the Code of Civil
Procedure would be as much applicable in such a
suit as in a suit in which oourt fee had been duly
paid. It is true that a person who claims to join a
petitioner praying for leave to sue in forma pauperis
must himself be a pauper. But his claim to join
by transposition as an applicant must be investigated ; it is not liable to be rejected on the ground
that the claim made by the original applicable is
personal to himself. In our view, the orders
passed by the High Court in both the revision
applications must be set aside.
Before parting with the case, we must take
notice of the unsatisfactory progress this litigation
has made since it was instituted nearly twelve
years ago. We regret to observe that the petition
filed in July 1950 for leave to sue informa pauperis
was not disposed of by the Subordinate Judge for
two years and it took the High Court three years
to dispose of the revision petitions against the
orders of the Subordinate Judge. The proceedings
wore further heYd up even after special leave was
granted by this Court in March, 1957 for nearly five
yea.rs before the appeal could be heard.
Thill
1963
Vij41 Pr•l•P Sillgh
v •.
NA Haran lf.U.
Bingli
Shah J,
1'U
l'tJ 'f1 l'r•l.P BU.th
••
Dtoli H•"" Na/A
SU.,A
sui. J.
1962
686 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962) SUPP.
Court had ordered that the hearing of the appeals
be expedited and heard on cyclostyled record but
the record was not made ready for a long time. We
also .find that a large number of documents were
included in the books prepared for ueo of tJrn court
to \vhich no reference was ma.de at the Bar during
the course of the hearing. Wo trust that the oaee
will bo taken up for hearing with the least practicable delay a.nd disposed of according to law.
The appellants in the two appeals will be
entitled to their costs both in this Court and
the High Court. The costs of tho trial court will
be the cost in the cause.
Appeals allowed. Cases remitted.
THE LODNA COLLIERY CO. LTD.
v.
BHOLA.NATH ROY
(B. P. SINH.4, c. J., P. B. GAJENDRA.GA.D.KA.R
and RAGilUJIAR DAYAL, JJ.)
Lalthraj
lan&--Permanently selt/.,J,-Owmra'
rigll lo
,<Ub-soil mintrai..
The question arising for decision was whether a pcnon
with whom a re1umed invalid Lakhraj (revenue free) land
was permanently 11ttfled had rights in the sub-soil minerals or
not.
Held, that the right of property of the persons with
whom resumed invalid Lakhraj land had been settled, being
the same as of the Zamindars, extended to the sub-soil min·
era ls of the land held by them.
Ranjit Singlo v. Kali DMi Dt.bi (1917) L.R.44 I.A. 117,
referred to.
Bari Narain Singh v. Sri Ram Chakrabarli (1910) L. R.
37 I.A. 136, DurgaPrasad Singh v. Braja Nath Boae (1912)
L.R. 39 I.A. 133. Sashi Bhuaan Mwa v. Jyoti Prasad Singlo
Deo, (1916)L.R.44 I.A.46 and Raghtmath Roy Marwari v. Raja
of Jhms, (1919) L.R. 46 I.A. 158, held not applicable.
CrvIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal
No. 405 of 1966.