ORDER :- This revision petition is directed against the order of the learned Munsiff, Manipur, dated 29-6-1962 permitting the first respondent herein to sue as a pauper. The first respondent filed the suit for a declaration of his title to 3 sangams of land under patta No. 58/288-I.E.T., stating that he was in possession of the property and that the defendants were interfering with the said possession. Along with the plaint, he filed an application for permission to file the suit in forma pauperis stating that he was possessed of only some utensils and some pieces of cloth worth Rs. 8/- and that he had no means of paying the Court-fee in the suit. The present petitioner as well as the Government contested and stated that the first respondent was possessed of means to pay the Court-fee for the suit. But the Government did not take part in the enquiry regarding pauperism. The petitioner herein produced documents in support of his contention that the first respondent had besides the suit land under patta No. 58/288 certain other properties under patta Nos. 58/10 and 57/276 and 50/307 which he got transferred in the name of his minor sons only a few days before he filed the application to sue in forma pauperis. But the learned Munsiff held that the first respondent was a pauper and allowed his application. Against that order, the first petitioner has come up in revision. 2. I am afraid, the learned Munsiff has not understood the case at all properly. He forgot that the Court-fee payable on the plaint was only a fixed the Court-fee of Rs. 20/- as the suit was only for the declaratory relief regarding the title. The first respondent had to show that he did not have sufficient means to pay this petty court-fee of Rs. 20/-. The learned Munsiff never tried to understand the case in that way. The first respondent was admittedly in possession of the property of 3 sangams of land under patta No. 58/288-Kh. in respect of which he prayed for the declaration of his title. The said property which was admittedly in his possession had also to be taken into account in deciding his means to pay the Court-fee. Evidently, the Munsiff had excluded the said property from consideration, probably on the ground that the said property was the subject-matter of the suit. in respect of which he prayed for the declaration of his title. The said property which was admittedly in his possession had also to be taken into account in deciding his means to pay the Court-fee. Evidently, the Munsiff had excluded the said property from consideration, probably on the ground that the said property was the subject-matter of the suit. But in deciding whether the applicant who seeks permission to sue as a pauper has sufficient means, the property which is admittedly in his possession has also to be taken into account in deciding his means to pay the Court-fee. 3. Further, it was seen from the Jamabandis Exts. B/1 and B/2 produced by the petitioner that the land under patta No. 58/307 was in the name of the first respondent and it turned out from the evidence of the first respondent himself that it was just before he filed the application to sue in forma pauperis that he got the said land mutated in the name of his minor son Kokileshwar Singh. It was for the first respondent to explain how he transferred the said property standing in his name to his minor son. The first respondent never made any attempt to do so. It is clear therefore that within 2 months next before the presentation of the application he has disposed of the said property in order to be able to apply for permission to sue as a pauper. Thus, the first respondents application ought to have been rejected by the Munsiff under Order 33 Rule 5(c). 4. The revision petition is, therefore, allowed and the order of the Munsiff permitting the first respondent to sue as a pauper is set aside and the first respondent is directed to pay the Court-fee due on the plaint within a month from this date. The first respondent will pay the costs of this revision petition to the petitioner. Revision allowed.