Trevelyan, J.

1. In this application the defendant seeks to compel the plaintiffto give security for the costs of this suit.

2. The first ground is that he does not reside in BritishIndia.

3. Although he is a native of Cashmere, he seems to havebeen for some time resident in British India, and it does not appear that he hasbeen out of British India for a long time. This ground, I think, clearly fails.

4. The other ground is that he has disposed of a portion ofhis interest in the suit, that he is a pauper, and that the suit is aspeculative one brought at the instance of and for the benefit of others.

5. There are a good many matters alleged which go to themerits of the suit, and to which I need not refer in dealing with thisapplication.

6. In the 43rd paragraph of his affidavit Mahomed Ghousestates that in the year 1882 the plaintiff entered into an agreement with oneAbdoor Rohim and others for the purpose of obtaining from them advances fromtime to time in order to carry on a suit referred to in that affidavit, and tomeet his personal expenses during the pendency of the said suit and asremuneration for such advances he assigned over to Abdoor Rohim and others amoiety of all his claims in such suit, and of all property that he mightrecover under the decree in that suit. The plaintiff admits this agreement, andstates that he owes Rs. 700 under it.

7. It is then alleged that on the 11th of December, 1883,the plaintiff entered into a fresh agreement of a similar nature with AgaHossein Ali, Aga Ekram Ali, and Gobind Chunder Das, and that on the 21st ofApril, 1884, a mortgage was executed in favour of those persons.

8. The plaintiff admits this agreement and mortgage, butpoints out that he has still got a seven-anna interest in the estate, thesubject-matter of this suit.

9. The 46th paragraph of Mahomed Gouaes affidavit containsan allegation which is denied and is unsupported. I do not think I can act uponit.

10. The 47th paragraph states that the plaintiffs landlordhad to institute against him three suits, for small sums of rent.

11. The plaintiff states that he has satisfied thesedecrees, but [836] he does not state when he satisfied them. As he satisfiedanother suitor rent, which is referred to in the 48th paragraph of MahomedGoases affidavit, after notice of this application had been given, in allprobability he satisfied the three decrees also after notice had been given.

12. It appears from the affidavit of Mahomed Cause that thedefendant has been unable to realize from the plaintiff the costs of aninterlocutory application which he was directed to pay.

13. There is no doubt, I think, that the plaintiff is a poorman, probably without any means at all, and that he is being assisted by othersin obtaining funds for the purpose of carrying on this litigation. and that hehas parted with a portion of his interest. I do not think that the case goesfurther than this. Mr. Bonnerjee for the defendant relied on some observationsmade by the learned Judge who delivered the judgment of the Privy Council inthe well-known case of Ram Coomar Koondoo v. Chunder Canto Mookerjee. There SirMontague Smith says ILR 2 Cal 259 [LQ/CalHC/1977/49] :

It is the ordinary practice, if the plaintiff is suing foranother, to require security for costs, and to stay proceedings until it isgiven. The now plaintiffs were fully aware, during the pendency of the formersuit, of the arrangement between the McQueens and the defendant, but instead ofapplying for security for costs, they petitioned the Court to make him aco-plaintiff under Section 73 of Act VIII." And later on in the judgmenthe says: "It has been a misfortune to the plaintiffs that security was notobtained for the costs in the course of the former suit.

14. These observations were not necessary for the purpose ofthe decision, but I take it that there can be no doubt, apart from thatdecision, that this Court has power to require security for costs, if it findsthat the plaintiff is not the real litigant, but that he is only a puppet inthe hands of others. Sir Montague Smith did not, as I understand him, intend toapply to this country any principle in this matter different from that adoptedby the Courts in England. As I understand the English decisions the Courts donot require security, because the plaintiff is a pauper or because he is a meretrustee, but they do require security when they find that he is not the reallitigant. As Sir Montague Smith puts it, if the plaintiff is suing for another,security is required.

16. The real question is whether the plaintiff is suing forhimself or for another. In this case the plaintiff has a substantial interestin the suit, and, as far as I can see, the suit has been instituted by him onhis own behalf. I must on the affidavits find this as a fact, and I must holdthat this suit is really the plaintiffs suit, and that his name is not used byothers for their own purposes. He is, I think, suing for himself and not forany one else.

17. The application must be dismissed with costs.

.

Khajah Assenoollajoo vs. Solomon and Ors. (09.05.1887 -CALHC)