JUDGMENT D.S. Mathur, J. - This is a revision under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code by Munnu, minor plaintiff, through his next friend, Sarju, against the order dated 12-10-1963 of the Civil Judge of Varanasi dismissing his application under Order XXXIII, Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code and refusing to grant him permission to sue as a pauper. 2. The plaintiff had claimed to be the adopted son of Katwaru, opposite party No. 1, and wanted a declaration to assert his rights as such. The suit was opposed by Katwaru who denied the adoption. 3. The learned Civil Judge has recorded the finding that Shanker, natural father of the plaintiff, and also the brothers of Shanker including Sarju, had funds sufficient to pay the court fee and consequently no permission to sue as a pauper could be granted. 4. Order XXXIII, Civil Procedure Code has been worded generally and makes no differentiation between plaintiffs who are major and those who are minors. In the circumstances, the rule applicable to major plaintiff shall apply to minor plaintiff and permission to sue as a pauper can be granted to a minor if he does not possess sufficient funds to pay the court fee, even though his next friend may be a rich person and be in a position to pay the court fee. Whether after the dismissal of the suit court fee can be recovered from the next friend is not a matter III, issue and cannot influence the judgment. The English law to the contrary, namely, that no leave to sue as pauper can be granted to a minor unless both the minor and the next friend are proved not to possess sufficient funds to pay the court fee, cannot be made applicable to India. A similar view was expressed in Nanibala Dassya v. Jaimini Sundari AIR 1923 Calcutta 656, Nemichand Bhickchand Marwadi v. Kevalchand Jasraj Marwadi, AIR 1924 Bombay 440 and Venkatanarasayya v. Achemma, I.L.R. III Mad. 3. 5. The plaintiff was claiming to have been adopted by Kataru as his son. He cannot therefore, claim any interest in the properties of his natural father. On adoption one losses his rights in the family of his natural father and he can merely claim an interest, if any, in the properties of his adoptive father. 3. 5. The plaintiff was claiming to have been adopted by Kataru as his son. He cannot therefore, claim any interest in the properties of his natural father. On adoption one losses his rights in the family of his natural father and he can merely claim an interest, if any, in the properties of his adoptive father. In the eye of law he ceases to be the son of the natural father and becomes a son of the adoptive father. In the circumstances the assets of the natural father, nor of his family can be taken into consideration in determining whether the plaintiff has the means to pay the court fee. Further, no one shall come forward to purchase the interest of the minor plaintiff in the properties of his natural father when, according to him, he has no interest in, the property, unless it appears that the minor has a share independent to his natural father and his family. The minor claiming to be the adopted son of the defendant could therefore be permitted to sue as a pauper to obtain a declaration in his favour, i.e. his being the adopted son of the defendant. A similar view was expressed in the Bombay and Madras cases, referred to above. 6. The learned Civil Judge has recorded the finding as if the minor himself was not possessed of any property sufficient to pay the court fee, though sufficient properties to pay the Court fee were possessed by his natural father and the brothers of the natural father. As already held above, such properties had to be disregarded while dealing with the pauper matter. In other swords, the plaintiff deserved to be granted the permission to sue as a pauper even though his natural father and the brothers of the natural father had funds sufficient to pay the court fee. 7. The learned Civil Judge has committed a breach of the provisions of the law and hence this Court can pass a suitable order in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction. 8. The revision is hereby allowed with costs and the order under revision is set aside. The pauper application is allowed and the plaintiff is permitted to sue as, a pauper.