ANIL KUMAR Vs. BHAGIRATH LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE following pedigree-table will be helpful in understanding the facts of this case-Bhagat Ram = Smt. Dhan Devi | (widow) Defdt. No. 2. Bhagirath Lal = Smt. Uma Rani (defendant. No 1) (wife) Pltff. No. 2. | anil Kumar (minor), Pltff. No. 1.

(2.) IN may 1952 Smt. Uma Rani was married to Bhagirath Lal. Anil Kumar was born to them after a year or so of their marriage. Unfortunately, the relations between the husband and the wife had become strained and according to Smt. Uma Rani she was deserted by her husband. In order to provide future maintenance for her an her son Anil Kumar, Bhagat Ram, father of Bhagirath Lal, on 26-12-1953 created a charge by a registered deed on the property in dispute and on its rent to the extent of Rs. 200/- per mensem--Rs. 150/- per month for smt. Uma Rani and Rs. 50/- for Anil Kumar. On 15-1-1955 he also executed a general power of attorney in favour of Smt. Uma Rani for realising the rents of the said property, on the basis of which she started realising the same. In August 1955 Bhagat Ram died and after his death, Bhagirath Lal and his mother Smt. Dhan Devi started interfering with the realisation of the rents and asserted their own rights to the rent of the property in question. Thereupon, the present suit was brought in 1956 by Anil Kumar and Smt. Uma Rani for the grant of a permanent injunction restraining Bhagirath Lal (defdt. No. 1) and his mother Smt. Dhan Devi (defdt. No. 2) from claiming, receiving or recovering the rents from defendants 3 to 8, who are the tenants of the said property. An injunction was also claimed against defendants 3 to 8 restraining them from paying the said rents to defendants 1 and 2.

(3.) THE suit was resisted by defendants 1 and 2, who pleaded that Bhagat Ram had never executed any deed creating a charge on his property in favour of the plaintiffs. It was also stated that even if he did execute such a deed the same was not binding on them as it was executed under undue influence, coercion and fraud and also because he could not execute such a deed as the property in dispute was ancestral and belonged to the joint Hindu family. It was further asserted that bhagat Ram had cancelled the alleged deed of 26-12-1953 by a subsequent deed dated 13-8-1955. The execution of the general power of attorney was also denied and it was averred that the said power of attorney, if any, came to an end with the death of Bhagat Ram. Lastly, it was pleaded that under such circumstances a suit for a permanent injunction was not maintainable and the same could not be granted.