Short Note : 1. Pauperism of the non-applicants is challenged on the ground that they are occupying three rooms in a house which is a subject matter of the dipute can provide a source of money and that the trial Court did not take into consideration the fact that considerable money could be raised by mortgaging it. 2. Held: It is found that the non-applicants are occupying three rooms in the ground floor of house No. 302. The trial Court considered this fact of possession and interest in the property and the possibility of the Don-applicants being able to raise funds on the security. It is found that it would not be possible in view of the impending disputes as to the title and the small portion in their occupation. The two non applicants are minors and it is easy to see that no one would be willing to give Rs. 3,000 to the minors on such hazardous security. Reliance is however placed on Fakruddin and another v. Iqbal Ahmd and another ( AIR 1957 All 680 ), which ruling only says that the property in possession of the pauper could' Dot be ignored, even if, it is the subject matter of litigation. Now, it would be a question of fact as to whether or not the non-applicants could in the circumstances, raise any money on such security. The Court came to a conclusion that they could not and I do not see. that the finding is in any way wrong or unreasonable. 3. The other point tried to be raised is that the non-applicants in their claim have mentioned that they spent Rs. 6,000 for the repairs of the house occupied by them. The property is no doubt substantial and it is occupied by a few tenants. It may well be that they have been able to get the amount of Rs. 6,000 to save the property from extinction or from deterioration in value. It is yet another thing to say now that they can get an amount of Rs. 3,000 for the purpose of paying the Court fee. Merely from the fact that they in the past spent Rs. 6000 for the purpose of repairs of the house in dispute, it could not be inferred that they are now able to pay tile Court-fee. 3,000 for the purpose of paying the Court fee. Merely from the fact that they in the past spent Rs. 6000 for the purpose of repairs of the house in dispute, it could not be inferred that they are now able to pay tile Court-fee. In my opinion, the order of the Court below is well founded and that has to be maintained. AIR 1957 All. 680 , distinguished. Revision dismissed.