CHINTU Vs. MT. CHANDO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts found in this case are that Mt. Chando was married to Shiaman when she was very small. When she was 8 and her husband was 9, the husband died. The property of her husband was mutated in her name. She was living with her husband's brother Chintu, who was the Plaintiff and is the present Appellant. When she was about 18 or 19 years old, she was seduced by this brother -in -law of hers and gave birth to a child. The boy is now 7 years old and Chintu brought a suit in the trial Court alleging that he was in possession of the whole of the property, but she had been entered as co -owner to the extent of half the property in the revenue records and as she has become unchaste she has lost her right in the property and that it be so declared. He succeeded before the trial Judge as well as before the Senior Subordinate Judge in appeal. When the matter came up before the High Court, Achhru Ram J. held that there was ample evidence to prove that Chintu was the author of this boy and was her seducer. The learned Judge went on to say:

(2.) IN my opinion, she cannot be considered to be unchaste. I would also agree with Mr. Achhru Ram that the declaratory relief which is discretionary in its nature, should not be given to the Plaintiff in. the circumstances of the present case. It would be monstrous to hold that the seducer should deprive the person he seduces of the property which she has The appeal is dismissed with costs throughout.