Sivagami Ammal And Anr. vs T.S. Gopalaswami Odayar And Ors. on 20 October, 1924
2. The learned Subordinate Judge in the Court below seems for some reason to have regarded my decision in Sivagami Ammal v. Gopalaswami Udayar A.I.R. 1925 Mad. 765, as an authority for the position that the right to continue the application in such circumstances survives to the legal representative. In that case the petition to sue in forma pauperis had been allowed, and the matter was registered as a suit. It was during the pendency of the suit that the plaintiff died. In those circumstances it clearly followed that in a proceeding which was properly pending as a suit in Court if the plaintiff should die undoubtedly the legal representative may be brought on the record. I do not see what the principle of that decision has to do with the question which came up for consideration before the learned Subordinate Judge. There is also in the case A.S. Radhakrishna Iyer, petitioner: AH India Reporter 1925 Mad. p. 819, a decision by Mr. Justice Jackson, directly to the effect that there is no right in the legal representative of a pauper applicant to continue the application itself for being allowed to sue in forma pauperis. All that the learned Judge in that case stated was that there was no objection to the legal representative being brought on the record because the legal representative might offer to continue the proceedings transforming it into a suit by payment of the requisite Court-fee. I see no offer or indication in the present case of any such sort.