RAM NARAIN Vs. NARAINI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mewa Lal, the father of the plaintiff had two wives. These two wives were Smt. Bhagwati Devi and Smt. Kausa Kuer. The defen dants were born from Smt. Bhagwati Devi whereas Km. Naraini Devi, the plaintiff was the daughter of Smt, Kausa Kuer. Km. Naraini Devi brought a suit No. 32 of 63 for several reliefs. For the purposes of deciding the point raised, the relief claimed was that of main tenance and marriage expenses. She alleged that on the death of her father, Mewa Lal, all the properties of the deceased had been inherited by the defen dants and that they were liable to maintain her and also to pay the marriage expenses. The claim for maintenance and marriage expenses was contested by the defendants. They alleged that on the death of Mewa Lal, they had only inherited agricultural holding and two houses of which they were exclusive owners, hence the plaintiff was not entitled to any decree for maintenance from them. The trial Court decreed the suit partly for the recovery of maintenance at the rare of Rs. 40/- per month from the date of suit till her marriage and also for Rs. 4000/- towards marriage expanses. The trial Court directed that the amount realisable by the plaintiff would be a charge on the bhumidhari holding of the defendants. The appeal preferred by the defendants was dismis sed. Hence, this second appeal. The argument advanced in the second appeal-was that the property in dispute being agricultural holding, the same was not liable for the maintenance and marriage expenses. The two contentions raised in support of this argument were (1) that the bhumidhari in dispute could not be said to be an'estate' in as much as it was not the property of the defendants but only the tenancy and the houses were such which were exempt under Section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure, (2) that the defendants 1 and 2 had become owner of bhumi dhari land not by way of succession under the Hindu Law or under Hindu Succession Act, 1956, hence the property could not be made liable to charge for the maintenance of the plaintiff or her marriage expenses. Section 22 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act dials with maintenance of dependants. Section 21 defines the term 'dependants' and gives- the list of the relatives who would be included in that definition. An unmarried daughter is mentioned in (V) of Section 21. Section 22 creates a right of maintenance in favour of the depen'ants mentioned in Section 21 against the estate of the person whose dependants they are after the death of such person. As a general rule sub-section (I) of Section 22 lays down that on the death of a Hindu, the heirs of the deceased would be bound to maintain the dependants out of the estate inherited by them from the deceased. Sub section (2) provides that the dependants of the deceased will have rights to receive maintenance even from the property of the deceased even if it has been bequeathed to persons other than his heirs. In the instant case, however, the deceased Mewa lal did not execute any will. The right of the plaintiff therefore, to receive the maintenance is covered by sub-section (1) of Section 22. As already stated sub-section (1) confers the right of maintenance on the dependants against the heirs whrreas sub-section (2) provide- that if a deceased Hindu has bequeathed his property to persons other than his heirs, than the dependants would have a right to claim maintenance from those persons who take the estate. Under sub-section (1) of Section 22, the right is given as aaainst the 'estate' of the deceased. The heirs are bound to maintain the dependants of such deceased out of that estate which had been inherited by him. The word 'estate' has not been defined in the Act. This led to the argument before me that since the property inherded by the defendants were agricultural plots, the Courts had no right to create a charge as against them. The learned counsel urged that they had not inherited the property from their father under any personal law but had received the same under a special local enactment (U. P Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act ). Therefore, the same should be held as exempt from the encumbrance of maintenance. It is admitted between the parties that Mewa lal was the sole bhumidhar of the land in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the plaintiff was the unmarried daughter of the deceased Mewa Lal. The controversy that since the property had been inherited under the U. P. Z A. and L. R. Act and not the personal law therefore, the defendants did not have any liability to maintain the plaintiff. The word 'estate' used in Section 21 (1) has to be widely constru ed. It means the interest which any one has in lands or in any other subject of the property. Simply that the rights were inherited by the defendants under the Special Law that did not make the bhumidhari land any thing other than 'estate' of the deceased. A word cannot be read in isolation and if it is read without context, it will begin with a very wide area of meaning for it may occur in many hundreds of situations and may be used as a label for its cause of object but by means, of practical context in which it is used, we can whittle it down to the meaning which must have been intended to convey. Keeping the above rule of interpretation, it appears to ms that the legis lature could never have intended that the dependants of a bhumidhar would not be entitled to get maintenance from the agricultural properties left by him whereas the dependants of the person owning non-agricultural property would be so entitled. There is no rational basis to distinguish two types of cases. The right to receive maintenance does not depend on the nature of the property but on the fact that the heirs of the deceased inherited the estate. Undisputedly, the agricultural plots had been inherited from the deceased by the defendants 1 and 2. They could not escape their liability. Counsel for the defendants also contended that the Court below had no jurisdiction under the law to create a charge on the agricultural plots of the defendants. Hence, the decrees of the Courts below are illegal. The submis sion made is not tenable. Section 27 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act makes it clear that although maintenance is payable to a dependant out of the estate of the deceased, it is not by itself a charge on the estate. In other words, it is not a secured claim. It will have no priority over other claims. Hence a dependant will have to file a suit for maintenance and will have to get his interest secured as a charge by the decree of the trial Court. In the result, the second appeal fails and is dismissed. In the circum stance, the parties are directed to bear their own costs. .