JAGAT SINGH CHILWAL Vs. DUNGAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a defts' appeal arising out of a suit for a declaration that a certain deed of gift was void & for possession. The facts briefly stated are these.

(2.) Dungar Singh, the pltf.-resp., & his wife owned the property in dispute. Both the old persons were issueless & were in search of some one who could look after them & support & maintain them in their old age & to whom they might transfer the property which they possessed. The defts.-applts., husband & wife, persuaded the pltf.-resp. to transfer the property to them & promised that they would Support him in his old age. Accordingly on 23-12-1943, two documents were executed, (1) Ex. P-1, a registered deed by Dungar Singh in favour of the defts.-applts., & (2) Ex. P-2, an unregistered agreement whereby it was agreed that the donees would maintain Dungar Singh & his wife till their death & would perform their obsequies on their deaths, & that in case they failed to do so Dungar Singh might revoke the deed of gift or, in the alternative, obtain maintenance allowance. This deed of agreement was signed by Jagat Singh, applt.1, alone & not by his wife. After sometime parties quarrelled & the pltf.-resp. filed the suit which has given rise to this appeal alleging that the defts.-applts. had failed to support him & his wife as agreed to by them & that therefore he had revoked the deed of gift & was entitled to seek a declaration that the deed of gift was null & void & no longer binding upon him. He also claimed relief for possession over the property comprised in the deed of gift.

(3.) In the written statement which was filed on behalf of both the applts. it was admitted that the agreement was no doubt executed but it was alleged that they had not failed to maintain the pltf.-resp. & his wife, & that, in any case, according to the terms of the agreement the pltf. was not entitled to revoke the deed but was entitled only to recover amount of maintenance. In the plaint the pltf. had stated that both the defts. had entered into the agreement. In the written statement this fact was not denied. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the defts.-applts. has conceded that in view of the pleadings it was not open to him to place any reliance upon the fact that the agreement was not signed by applt 2. This point, therefore, need not detain us any further. This two main issues arose in the case; (1) Whether the defts. had failed to maintain the pltf. & his wife & (2) whether, if the answer to the first issue was in the affirmative, the pltf. was entitled to revoke the deed of gift & recover possession over the property. A subsidiary point in connection with the second issue also arose, namely, whether the agreement could be admitted in evidence as it was un-registered. Both the Cts. below decided that the defts.-applts. failed to maintain the pltf. & his wife as agreed to by them in the deed of agreement Ex. P2; that the deed of agreement, though unregistered, was admissible in evidence & lastly, that the pltf. was entitled to revoke the deed of gift & therefore to recover possession over the property in suit.