SHANTABAI Vs. SAVITRIBAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a Letters Patent appeal by Mst. Shanta Bai. The facts which have given rise to this appeal are complicated but only the most relevant may be noted as follows. Two brothers Shaligram and Rameshwar were proprietors in the district of Hoshangabad. Shaligram bad two sons, Shrinarain and Sheonarain. Shrinarain left a widow Godavaribai and Sheonarain left Savitribai. Rameshwar had died leaving Kundanbai, his widow, in the life-time of his brother Shaligram. Kundanbai filed a suit for maintenance against her husband's brother Shaligram being Civil Suit No. 26 of 1894. THIS suit was decreed on 30th April 1895 decreeing the claim at Rs. 250 per mensem and this maintenance was declared to be a charge upon all ancestral property of the family. The property consisted of proprietary rights in villages also. From time to time Kundanbai had to file suits for recovery of her maintenance and in one of such suits the amount of maintenance was reduced to Rs. 200 per month with effect from 1st July 1918. As the maintenance fell in arrears, Kundanbai executed two wills but for the purposes of this suit it is enough to refer to the will dated 9th February 1944 by which she bequeathed her arrears of maintenance from the 25th September 1936 to 24th January 1944 in favour of the present plaintiff Smt. Shanta Bai who was her brother's grand-daughter. After executing this will Smt. Kundanbai died on the 22nd July 1944. In 1951 the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights Act, 1950 (No. 1 of 1951) came into force by which all liabilities of the proprietors which were made a charge on proprietary rights were to be liquidated and Smt. Savitribai, the widow of Sheonarain who was the only heir left in the family of Shaligram, and Rameshwar filed an application under section 19 of the Abolition Act showing the decretal liability of the maintenance allowance but did not show the arrears of maintenance allowance which had not been decreed but which had already fallen due. THIS application was contested by Smt. Shanta Bai, the present plaintiff-appellant; but she also did not claim the arrears of maintenance which had not till then been decreed and to which she was entitled under the will mentioned above. Thereafter, the present suit for recovery of Rs. 6,364, principal and interest, was filed on 27th September 1954.

(2.) A large number of pleas were taken by the defendant-respondent but we are now dealing with only one of the objections, namely, that the claim not having been proved before the Claims Officer under the Abolition Act stands discharged, and no suit can be decreed on its basis. The trial Court accepted this plea among others and dismissed the suit. The lower appellate Court did not agree with the trial Court on this point, but in second appeal the learned single Judge of this Court has upheld the plea in defence and has upheld the dismissal of the suit on that ground. Before us this was the first contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant and since we have agreed with the learned single Judge on this point for reasons which we will hereafter indicate, it is not necessary to go into the other questious that arise in the case. We, therefore, proceed to consider the provisions of the said Abolition Act bearing upon this question.

(3.) WE, therefore, see no force in this appeal and it is dismissed. In view of all the circumstances of the case we direct the parties to bear their own costs of this appeal.