Asanand vs Gossain Madan Mohan Nand and another

Ross, J.—This is an application in revision against an order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge of Patna refusing an application for permission to sue in forma pauperis. The ground on which this application was refused was that the plaintiff had entered into an agreement with two persons Rameswar and Chhedi by which they had obtained an interest in the subject matter of the suit. It appears that these two persons were ijaradars of a certain village Kharthua which was purchased by the defendant. The defendant redeemed the mortgage and thereupon these persons brought a suit for pre-emption. Then the present suit was brought against the defendant by the plaintiff who claimed the property of the defendant''s muth.

The learned Subordinate Judge found as a fact after taking evidence that an oral agreement had been entered into between the plaintiff and these two persons by virtue of which a contingent interest in some of the properties which formed the subject-matter of the intended suit, particularly in Kharthua, was agreed to be vested in these persons as third parties to the present litigation.

It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that by an oral agreement no interest could be obtained in the subject-matter of the suit which is immovable property and reference was made to S. 54, Transfer of Property Act, and Ss. 17 and 49, Registration Act. Now this argument seems to be beside the point. It was held in Gharu, Sila Dasi v. Haran Chandra Mukherjee [1919] P.H.C.C. 232= 50 I.C. 520 that the statute has been designed in aid of bona fide litigants and it must be strictly confined to such litigants. The finding of the learned Subordinate Judge is to the effect that this is not a bona fide litigation but that the plaintiff has been set up by these two persons in aid of their own pre-emption suit. Whether the learned Subordinate Judge''s decision that these two persons had acquired an interest in the subject-matter of the suit is right in law or not is not a question which entitles the High Court to interfere in revision. There is no question of jurisdiction. The Court had jurisdiction to inquire into the pauperism of the plaintiff and if in the course of that inquiry the Subordinate Judge has made an error in point of law (which he may or may not have done), that does not affect his jurisdiction or attract the jurisdiction of this Court under S. 115, Civil P.C.I, therefore, dismiss this application with costs ; hearing fee two gold mohurs.