KANWAL SINGH Vs. BISHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of an application filed by plaintiffs 2 and 3 seeking the relief of maintenance Co enable them to meet their day to day expenses and also to meet the education expenses of the plaintiff No. 3 who is a student. In order to appreciate their contents, in short the case of the.: plaintiff is that plaintiff No. 2 is the widow of Hanumant Singh, predeceased son of Shri Har Kishan and plaintiff No. 3, Master Satish is the minor son of Late Shri Hanumant Singh. Late Har Kishan Singh who was the father-in-law of plaintiff No. 2 and grand father of plaintiff No. 3, inherited an ancestoral land, which was acquired-by the Government of India under the Land Acquisition Act. He received compensation because of the ancestoral lands being acquired by the Government. With the amount of that compensation, Har Kishan purchased certain lands in village Sahibabad, Daulat Pur and in Delhi Estate Jointly in his name and in the name of Smt. Sarwan Kaur wife of one his sons Shri Kartar Siagh. Certain lands were sold by late Shri Harkishan. The entire sale proceeds which came in the hands of Shri Har Kishan was ancestoral property. Late Har Kishan had also some ancesstoral lands besides four ancestoral pucca houses in Pitam Pura and a plot bearing Khasra No. 460/1, measuring about 2 bighas along with boundary walls with a covered passage and vacant shops on the back side of the said passage. On his death he left certain moveable properties which are in possession of Shri Kartar Singh, defendant No. 2 herein. It is further the case of the plaintiffs that before the death of Har Kishan, There was a notional partition of the ancestoral property and each co-parceaer got 1/6th share of the moveable properties m the hands of Har Kishaii. Plaintiffs No.2 and 3 being the legal heirs of Shri Hanumant Singh, have asked for the paartition after the death of Har Kishan but the defendants are neither giving possession of the property nor giving any share out of the same though defendants themselves are enjoying the ancestoral property and the proceeds thereof, thereby depriving the plaintiffs the benefit of the same.

(2.) It is in this background that this application has been filed by plaintiff No. 2 and 3, the legal heirs of late Shri Hanumant Singh, (pre deceased son of Late Har Kishan) on the ground that they have no independent source of income and their livelihood also depends on this ancestoral property where from the defendants are receiving rents but are not sharing with the plaintiffs. Therefore, they claimed that Rs. 10,000.00 be paid to the plantiffs till the appointment of Reciever and they should also pay Rs. 5,000.00 per month to plaintiffs 2 and 3 to enable them to meet their day to day expenses. This application has been contested by defendant No. 2 inter alia on the grounds that the plaintiffs have no share outof the suit properties. Therefore, they are not entitled to receive any amount nor the plaintiffs have given any specific mode of income which the defendants are earning and realising out of the suit property. Even otherwise, if the plaintiffs suceedes the suit, they and defendants 7 to II would get only one share in equal shares. And if this application, is maintainable, it is only against defendants 7 to II who are liable and bound to pay the interm relief to the applicants. No other defendant has filed the reply to this application of the plaintiffs,

(3.) On the day the arguments were beared, the plaintiff filed an affidavit of Dr. Kanwal Singh, son of late Sh. Har Kishan (plaintiff No.1 herein) who indicated that there are about 17 shops which have been let out and the rents which is being collected ranges from Rs. l,500.00 p.m. to 2.000.00 per month. By this affidavit, he has stated that two shops are given by Kartar Singh, defendant No. 2, four by Vijender Singh, defendant No 7, two by Bishan Singh, defendant No. 1 and five by Jaswant Singh through his wife Smt. Dhanpati, defendant No. 3. Besides these premises, defendant No. 3 has also let out various portions of the house to different tanents for residential purposes and thus the defendants are collecting minimum rent of Rs. 5,000.00 per month jointly and severally.