Judgment :- 1. The Subordinate Judge of Kasaragod dismissed the application filed by the petitioner for leave to continue the suit in forma pan-peris which he originally filed paying court fee. A few facts may be stated. 2. The petitioner is one of three brothers constituting a joint family with the mother also alive. He filed a suit for partition and separate possession of his share paying the requisite court fee of Rs. 2,000/-. The plaint was filed on 22nd August 1958; and the defendants, who are the brothers and the mother filed their written statement on 23rd October 1958, wherein they alleged that there were several other items, which should also have been included in the plaint. Thereupon the petitioner included those items as well in the plaint and he had then to pay a further court fee of over Rs. 4,000/-. At that stage, he filed the application for leave to continue the suit in forma pauperis and this was dismissed by the lower Court. 3. It has come out in evidence that the plaintiff had a deposit of over Rs. 5,000/- in the Canara Bank Ltd. at the time of filing the suit. He appears to have withdrawn amounts therefrom for paying the court fee. Subsequent to the filing of the suit, he appears to have withdrawn further amounts also from the Bank on 6th September 1958. It may be noted in this connection that the written statement containing the allegation, that there were other items as well to be partitioned, came in only subsequent to that withdrawal, i. e., the written statement was filed only on 23rd October 1958. Therefore, it cannot be said that when he withdrew the amount on 6th September, 1958, he had any mala fides or any fraudulent intent. His case is that he spent the amount in connection with the case. 4. The learned Subordinate Judge has relied mainly on the decision in Chellammal v. Muthulakshmi Ammal (AIR. 1945 Madras 296) for dismissing the petition and he has quoted the following passage therefrom: "Under O.33 R.2 read with O.33, R.5 (a) and O.44, R.1 it is the bounden duty of the petitioner applying for leave to sue or appeal as a pauper to make a full and accurate verified statement of his or her properties. 1945 Madras 296) for dismissing the petition and he has quoted the following passage therefrom: "Under O.33 R.2 read with O.33, R.5 (a) and O.44, R.1 it is the bounden duty of the petitioner applying for leave to sue or appeal as a pauper to make a full and accurate verified statement of his or her properties. The utmost good faith is required of the petitioner in the matter of the disclosure of his or her assets and any intentional departure from good faith, whatever the motive may be, must result in the dismissal of the petition." This passage, relied on by the learned Subordinate Judge, itself indicates that the departare from good faith must be intentional. Moreover, this decision has been subsequently considered by the same Court in other decisions. One of them is D. Ramakrishna Chetti v. Govindammal (1954 (1) M. L. J. 26), wherein Venkatarama Ayyar, J., has considered the aforesaid decision & has observed that a person who applies for leave to institute a suit or file an appeal in forma pauperis must act with the utmost good faith and if it turns out that there was an intentional non-disclosure of assets belonging to the petitioner, that would be a ground for dismissing the petition; but when the petitioner omitted to disclose in his application his provident fund under the impression that it did not belong to him, his conduct could not be said to be wanting in bona fides. In the next case, Murugan v. Sivaraman (1955 (2) MLJ. 638), Rajamannar, G J. has again considered Chellammal v. Muthulakshmi Ammal and also the later decision of Venkatarama Ayyar J. in D. Ramakrishna Chetty v. Govindammal. The learned Chief Justice has observed that it is not correct to say that an omission to mention even the most insignificant items of movable properties must by itself lead to a dismissal of an application for leave to sue in forma pauper is under 0.33, Civil Procedure Code; and the rule as to dismissal of such an application on the ground of suppression of assets must be confined to cases where the suppression is deliberate and not bona fide. The learned Chief Justice has also observed that to find out whether an omission was deliberate and mala fide one test is to ascertain whether the intention was to conceal the omitted item, because if that were included, the Court would find the petitioner had means to pay the court fee. Rajamannar C. J. then gives the following illustration. If the Court fee payable is Rs. 1,000/- and if an item worth Rs. 50/'- or Rs. 100/'- is left out, it cannot be said that the omission was deliberate and mala fide for the obvious reason that even if that item was included in the schedule, the petitioner could still have easily maintained that he was not in a position to pay the court fee of Rs. 1,000/-. The same legal position appears in other cases as well; Vide Mt. Chamela Kuar v. Pursottam Das (140 I. C. 74), where the Patna High Court has held that it must be found that there was a mala fide omission from the schedule of properties which would materially affect the question of pauperism, before an application for leave to sue as pauper can be rejected, and the omission of a few articles worth a few rupees which could in no way affect the decision of the Court on the question of pauperism has not the effect of throwing out the application on the ground that it does not contain a list of all the properties of the petitioner and Bagala Sundari Devi v. River Steam Navigation Go. Ltd. (1511. C. 635), where the Calcutta High Court has also held that where an application for permission to sue as a pauper had all the particulars required with regard to a plaint in the suit, there was no defect in the form or frame of the application and the omission to include one solitary item of property was not a non-compliance with the provisions of O.33, R.2. Again in Madan Mohan Lal Kapani v. jhalman Singh (AIR. 1954 Cal. 89) the Calcutta High Court has held that where an application for permission to sue as a pauper is otherwise in order, mere omission to include therein an item of property is not a non-compliance with the provisions of O. 33, R.2, which must entail the rejection of the application. 5. 1954 Cal. 89) the Calcutta High Court has held that where an application for permission to sue as a pauper is otherwise in order, mere omission to include therein an item of property is not a non-compliance with the provisions of O. 33, R.2, which must entail the rejection of the application. 5. The aforesaid decisions make the position abundantly clear that the mere omission to disclose one item in the schedule is not, by itself, sufficient for the dismissal of the application to sue in forma pauperis. It must also appear to the court that such omission was deliberate and mala fide. In the present case, the petitioner omitted to disclose a promissory note for Rs. 830/-in the schedule to his petition and his explanation for the omission is that the promissory note was in the possession of his brother, one of the defendants, and therefore he did not consider that as an asset which should be shown in the schedule. For one thing, the promissory note is not an asset, which could be used for paying the court fee. Secondly, the promissory note is alleged to be in the possession of one of the defendants. Thirdly, the amount involved in the promissory note is negligent in comparison with the amount of court fee payable. Therefore, the omission to show this item in the schedule cannot be considered to be deliberate or mala fide, for even if that asset were shown therein, still the petitioner could have successfully claimed to be a pauper. It follows that for that reason alone the petition should not have been dismissed. 6. The learned Subordinate Judge observes towards the close of his judgment: "A person having a share in such extensive properties cannot be deemed to be not in a position to pay court fee which has been directed to pay (sic) unless he proves definitely that he has no means." This reasoning is not quite happy. The question to be considered in a petition for leave to sue in forma pauperis is not what the petitioner is entitled to, which is itself the subject matter of the suit, but his means then to pay the required court fee. The petitioner's having a share in extensive properties is no indication that he is in possession of means with which he can pay the Court fee. The petitioner's having a share in extensive properties is no indication that he is in possession of means with which he can pay the Court fee. In this case, the petitioner is only a junior member of the family, one of the defendants being the ejaman thereof. Therefore, the learned Subordinate Judge's conclusion that the petitioner is not a pauper is erroneous and unwarranted. 7. It may also be noted that the Government Pleader did not oppose the application either before the lower Court or in this Court. 8. The order of the Subordinate Judge is set aside and the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The petitioner is allowed to continue the suit as a pauper. The respondents will pay the costs of the petitioner in both the courts which I fix at Rs. 100/-. Allowed.