MAHANT NARSIDASJI BALMUKUNDDASJI Vs. BAI JAMNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FIRST Appeal No.95 of 1936 is an appeal against a decree of the FIRST Class Subordinate Judge, Ahmedabad, awarding the plaintiff Rs. 5,044 in respect of arrears of maintenance. The facts leading to the litigation were shortly these. The plaintiff's husband Ambalal, who was a wealthy and pious Hindu, died on July 27, 1929, leaving properties immoveable and moveable which have been described in a schedule annexed to the plaint. They consisted of lot No.1 a large residential house in Jamalpur, Ahmedabad, containing several buildings in one com lot No.2 a shop forming a portion of the above, lot No.3 a building, and lot No.4 a dehla also situated in Jamalpur, lot No.5 a building known as the Apangashram or Cripples' Home which was constructed by Ambalal in his lifetime on land belonging to the temple of Shri Jagannathji, and lot No.6 a building on the Richey Road, Ahmedabad, in which Ambalal in his lifetime had started a dispensary. The moveable properties consisted of twelve shares in the National Mills, ten shares of the Saraswati Oil Mills Company which is now in liquidation, a certain amount of outstandings of the deceased Ambalal, and two deposit receipts for Rs. 10,000 each, one in the name of the plaintiff and the other in the name of Ambalal's sister Kashi now deceased. At the time of Ambalal's death there was a sum of Rs. 20,000 and over lying on deposit in the National Mills and this was divided into two separate deposits of Rs. 10,000 each.

(2.) AMBALAL disposed of his property by four wills and a trust deed: dated September 29, 1925, and two subsequent wills dated May 5, 1928. All these documents were registered. Without going into detail it may be stated that of the four wills executed on September 29, 1925, one, exhibit 35, gives the income of the Saraswati Oil Mills Company shares and deposit for the maintenance of the Apangashram. Another, exhibit 36, gives the shares of the National Mills and some other moneys and outstandings for the maintenance of the same institution. The third will, exhibit 145, gives all AMBALAL's immoveable properties in the event of his having no son to provide Rajbhog (i. e. food for the deity and Sadhus) in Shri Jagannathji's temple of which defendant No.1 is the mahant. This is subject to provision being made for the residence of AMBALAL's wife, the plaintiff, and his sister Kashibai. The fourth will, exhibit 146, provides for the maintenance of Kashibai, who was to have Rs. 600 a year, and also a sum of Rs. 5,000 for charity, etc. Rupees 10,000 deposited in the National Mills were to be set apart for her maintenance. A similar provision was made for the maintenance of the plaintiff, and it was provided that after her death Rs. 5,000 were to be spent on her obsequies. The trust deed, which is exhibit 160, provided for the dispensary. The house on Richey Road, which AMBALAL had purchased for Rs. 60,000, was given for housing the institution, and it was to be maintained by letting part of it on rent.

(3.) IN the alternative the plaintiff prayed for two reliefs. IN the plaint as originally framed the first prayer was for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 400 or Rs. 350 in addition to the Rs. 50 provided by the wills. She claimed this for the future and; also claimed arrears at the same rate for twenty-six months from the date of Ambalal's death, and she prayed that the estate should be administered to enable these payments to be made. The relief was valued at Rs. 8,000. By an amendment, which was allowed on December 13, 1934, the claim was limited to past maintenance only at the rate of Rs. 350 or Rs. 300 in addition to the Rs. 50 given by the wills. This was done to avoid the payment of the additional Court-fees on the sum of Rs. 42,000 which the plaintiff had been ordered to pay. The second alternative relief prayed for is that true and proper accounts should be taken of the defendants' management and of the loss sustained by the estate of the deceased owing to their mismanagement and negligence, that the Court would decide the liability of the defendants to the estate and would remove them from their trusteeship and appoint new trustees and make proper administration of the estate. This relief was valued at Rs. 200.