SUBHASHCHANDRA Vs. NARBADABAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant/appellant appeals against the decree granted in favour of the plaintiff/respondent for maintenance.

(2.) The respondent/plaintiff Narbadabai sought to enforce her right of maintenance granted to her by Seth Kishanlal Jain who was the husband of appellant Gulabbai. Appellant Gulabbai died during the pendency of this appeal and is now reprcsenled by her legal representative. It is no more in dispute now that Narbadabai was the mistress of Kishanlal Jain. She came in the keeping of Kishanlal when she had already a husband living. Kishanlal executed an agreement dated 4-5-1966 (Ex. P/5) whereby he undertook to pay certain amount and articles of food and certain clothing to her during her lifetime and also declared that after his death his heirs would also be bound to maintain her in the same way. This maintenance was granted to her for her life. Accepting her claim under this agreement, the lower appellate Court while reversing the decree of the trial Court, has decreed her suit,

(3.) Shri A. R. Choubey, learned counsel for the appellant, some what faintly argued that the document (Ex. P/5) was inadmissible in evidence for want of registration. This argument must be rejected for the simple reason that it does not purport to transfer any immovable property. It only permits the plaintiff Narbadabai to occupy a room in the house during her lifetime. Thus, under that agreement, Narbadabai was permitted to occupy a room as a licencee. That being so the document does not require registration. No other objection was raised to its admissibility. I, therefore, hold that agreement (Ex. P/5) is admissible in evidence. I may point out that its execution was not challenged by the appellant.