VIJAY PRATAP SINGH versus DUKH HARAN NATH SINGH AND ANOTHER

Citation: [1962] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 675 · Decided: 19-01-1962 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.K. DAS · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

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 juris-
diction-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 grand-
father 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 per-
misoion 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 jurisdic-
tion 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 trans-
position 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 p011868s-
ion 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

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.