1. This is an application for revision under Schedule 115, Civil P.C., and is directed against an order of the learned Subordinate Judge of Benares, dated 3rd November 1930, dismissing the plaintiff's application for leave to sue as a pauper upon the ground that the plaint did not Disclose any cause of action. The facts of this case which have given rise to this application are briefly these: The plaintiff alleges that there is an ancestral mutt belonging to Daanami Sanyasis of the Gir sect in mohalla Suraj Kund in the city of Benares and that this mutt owns property worth Rs. 10,00,000. A genealogical table has been set out in para. 3 of this application. Narain Gir is alleged to be the last mahant of this gaddi. He died a minor on 9th July 1910. Swarath Gir, Guru of the applicant, who was a chachera Guru Bhai of Narain Gir, is described as the next mahant of the gaddi, as (according to Parmarath Gir), he was duly given the chaddar according to the custom of the mutt and thus became the mahant. The property was in the possession of the Court of Wards. Three suits were instituted with reference to this property; one by Jagannath Gir; the second by Swarath Gir and the third by Trigumanand. These suits were numbered and registered respectively as No. 29 of 1913 No. 122 of 1913 and No. 27 of 1915.
2. There was a triangular duel amongst these three persons, the position of the Court of Wards being that of a neutral state which held the property in the capacity of a stakeholder. All the three suits-were dismissed by the trial Court in December 1915. There were three appeals lodged in this Court. The appeal of Trigumanand was allowed and the other two appeals were dismissed.
3. These appeals were decided on 30th April 1922. Swarath Gir made two applications to this Court for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council; one in his own suit and the other in the suit of Trigumanand. Leave to appeal was granted on both these applications. Swarath Gir failed to deposit Rs. 4,000 as security, in one of his appeals, and the result was that that appeal was dismissed for default of prosecution. Swarath Gir died on 22nd February 1924. On 25th July 1924, Parmarath Gir, alleging himself to be the chela of Swarath Gir, applied for substitution of his name in place of Swarath Gir in Privy Council Appeal No. 17 of 1922. Trigumanand Gir opposed this application on the ground that Parmarath Gir was not the chela of Swarath Gir at all but was an impostor. On 28th November 1924, Parmarath Gir's application was dismissed for default of prosecution and it was declared that the Privy Council Appeal No. 17 of 1922 had abated. On 23rd December 1924 Parmarath Gir applied for setting aside the order, dated 28th November 1924, dismissing his application for substitution of his name and he further prayed for the setting aside of the order of abatement but this application was dismissed on 8th January 1925.
4. The present application for leave to sue in forma pauperis was lodged by him on 31st March 1930. This was rejected by the Subordinate Judge on the ground that so far as the claim purported to be one for the determination of his title to the property as chela of Swarath Gir, it offended against the provisions of Order 22, Rs. 9 and 11, Civil P.0., and was not competent, and so far as it purported to be a claim founded upon his personal right as a Sanyasi belonging to the Gir sect, which held the mutt, his application did not disclose any cause of action and was therefore liable to dismissal under Order 33, Rule 5 (d), Civil P.C. An application for revision has been filed against this order.
5. Upon an examination of the petition, it is clear that the applicant-plaintiff has no cause of action for the reliefs claimed. He is not the successor nominated by the last mahant nor is he a person, who has been selected and placed upon the gaddi by the electoral body in accordance with the custom of the foundation. He comes into Court on the allegation that as the sole surviving Sanyasi, belonging to this mutt, be has a right of action. Upon his own showing, he is not a person who is qualified to sue because he is not a person who has been duly elected to the gaddi in accordance with the conditions set out in para 4(a) of his plaint. We are therefore of opinion that the Court below was right in coming to, the conclusion that his petition did not disclose any cause of action.
6. A 'cause of action' may consist of a single fact or of an assemblage of facts which it is essential for the plaintiff to prove in order to support his claim against the defendant about the subject-matter in dispute. Where the plaintiff has no immediate title to the property in dispute, he cannot sustain an action for ejectment. A person, who is a mere sanyasi of the mutt and who has not been nominated as the successor by the last mahant or elected by the mahants, the members of the sect and the Raises and placed upon the gaddi after due performance of rituals, is not competent to maintain a suit for ejectment and does not possess the necessary cause of action. The learned Subordinate Judge had these considerations in view when he made the following statements which have our approval:
In the absence of nomination, the right of appointment, according to the customs of the mutt mentioned above, vests in the fraternity. The plaintiff says that he is merely a Sanyasi of the mutt. Unless therefore he is elected and given the chaddar, he has no right to seek the intervention of the Court The Courts have no power to give the chaddar and cannot therefore intervene against the cosharers of the mutt There is nothing to show that he (the incumbent) has been removed by his fraternity on account of his misconduct or that any other appointment has been made in his place by those who possess the right to do so. The plaint as it stands does not disclose any cause of action.
7. We have to remember that this is not a suit instituted by the relators under Section 92, Civil P.C., with the sanction of the Advocate-General for the administration of the trust or for the removal of the trustees upon the ground that a breach of trust had taken place. Different considerations arise in such suits. Our attention has been drawn to the decisions of this Court in Sumatra Devi v. Ilazari Lal : AIR1930All126 and Bam Lal v. Allahabad Bank  118 I.C. 669. In the former, the application was dismissed not on one of the grounds specified in Order 35, Rule 5, Civil P.C., but mainly upon the ground that the case of the plaintiff was weak. In the second case, the application of the plaintiff was thrown out on the ground that the evidence produced by him did not show that he had a good case. In the present case, the Court definitely came to the conclusion that the plaint did not disclose any cause of action and this view was supported by an examination of the plaint, with reference to paras. 1, 3 and 4 of the plaint. In para. 18 of the plaint, the only cause of action alleged by the plaintiff is that the defendant was put into possession of this property by the Court of Wards on 1st January 1924. That is immaterial. We are of opinion that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action against the defendant and the petition has been rightly dismissed under Order 33, Rule 5(d), Civil P.C. We dismiss this application with costs.