LAJWANTI Vs. BALESHWAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The parties are displaced persons who migrated to India from West Pakistan in the wake of the partition of the country. The respondents are sons of the deceased Harcharan Singh who was the son of the deceased Kesri Singh, Raja of Sheikhupura in the undivided Punjab now part of West Pakistan. It is admitted by the respondents that the appelant was a keep of the late Raja Kesri Singh. The appellant, however, contends that she was legally married to Kesri Singh. Kesri Singh died in or about 1935 and his son Harcharan Singh also died in or about 1936. Their estate was, therefore, taken over by the Court of Wards as the respondents were then minors. The court of Wards granted Rs. 100.00 per month as maintenance to the appellant. This went on till shortly before the partition of the country. The parties then came over to India. A sum of Rs. 10,74,000.00 out of the profits of the estate was in deposit with the Court of Wards, Lahore. This deposit was transfered to India in accordance with the agreement between India and Pakistan to be dealt with under the Transwer of Evacuee Deposits Act, 1954. The appellant made an application to the Custodian of Deposits that she be paid half of the deposit as the widow of the late Raja Kesri Singh or alternatively Rs. 100.00 per month as maintenance from the deposit. The respondents denied that the appellant was a widow of Kesri Singh and that she was entitled to any share in the deposit. They also denied their liability to pay maintenance to the appellant out of the Q deposit. The Custodian, therefore, forwarded the deposit and the records relating thereto to the Court of the District Judge, Delhi, under section 9(2)(b) of the Transfer of Evacuee Deposits Act, 1954 for a decision of the dispute and the award of the deposit to the party entitled thereto or distribution of the same among the parties so entitled. The District Judge found as a fact that the appellant was not legally married to Kesri Singh but was his concubine and was as such entitled to a maintenance of Rs. 100.00 per month. He held that she was entitled to Rs. 25,000 as arrears of maintenance and ordered the same to I be paid out of the deposit to her. Lajwanti (appellant) filed an appeal in this Court against the decision of the District Judge under section 9(4) of the said Act asking for a share in the deposit or alternatively increased maintenance while Baleshwar Singh and Surrinder Singh (respondents) filed cross-objections denying both these claims. v. D. Misra J. dismissed the appeal by Lajwanti and partly allowed the cross-objections of Baleshwar Singh and Surinder Singh. The learned Judge agreed with the District Judge that Lajwanti never legally married Kesri Singh but was only his concubine and that she was entitled to a maintenance of Rs. 100.00 per month as such. The learned Judge, however, held that the power of the District Judge to grant maintenance to Lajwanti was not greater than the power of Court of Wards to do so. That power came to an end when Baleshwar Singh and thereafter Surinder Singh attained majority by 18th August 1957. The amount of the arrears of maintenance till that date amounted to only Rs. 12,160.00 which was directed to be paid to Lajwanti out of the deposit, and the rest of her claim was dismissed. It is against this decision that Lajwanti has filed this letters patent appeal again asking either for one half share in the deposit or maintenance at a higher rate out of it.

(2.) We are in agreement with the concurrent findings of fact given by the District Judge and the learned Single Judge that Lajwanti was not married to Kesri Singh but was his concubine and as such she was entitled to maintenance from Kesri Singh and thereafter from the respondents to the extent of the assets of Kesri Singh received by them. The only question of law for decision in this second appeal, therefore, is whether the appellant Lajwanti is entitled to be paid her maintenance out of the deposit. The answer to this question depends on the correct construction of section 9 of the Transfer of Evacuee Deposits Act, 1954. But that Act itself is a part of a bigger scheme of legislation and can be best understood in the background of the said scheme.

(3.) The object of this scheme of legislation was to give relief to displaced persons. This problem was tackled as follows :- (1) The immovable property left in West Pakistan by these displaced persons became evacuee property in West Pakistan while the immovable property left by migrants from India to Pakistan became evacuee property in India. These properties vested in the Custodians of Evacuee Property in the two countries. Pending the final agreement between the two countries about these immovable properties, the claims of displaced persons to the immovable properties left in West Pakistan were registered and evaluated in India under the Displaced Persons (Claims) Act, 1950 and the Displaced Persons (Claims) Supplementary Act, 1954. Under the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, the immovable evacuee property in India was acquired by the Central Government and put into the compensation pool out of which compensation was paid to the displaced persons by the Government for the immovable properties they had to leave behind in West Pakistan. (2) An agreement between India and Pakistan was arrived at for the transfer from India to Pakistan and vice versa of certain specific movable properties belonging to displaced persons which were in the custody of a civil or a revenue court or of a court of wards or of a manager of an encumbered estate, to be held in custody by Custodians of Deposits. Such movable property was called a "deposit" under the Transfer of Evacuee Deposits Act, 1954. These deposits were .to be awarded by the Custodian to the displaced persons to whom they belonged and in case of dispute, they were to be distributed among the claimants by the District Judge under section 9 of the said Act. (3) Debts owed by or to such displaced persons in India were determined, adjusted and made payable by decrees pased by tribunals under the Displaced Persons (Debts Adjustment) Act, 1951.