TARLOK NATH Vs. RAM PIARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEFORE appreciating the precise question involved in this appeal, it is necessary to have a look at the facts stated in the plaint.

(2.) ONE Nand Lal was the owner of 1/2 share in 531 Kanals 18 marlas of land situated in village Malia, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur. Nand Lal had two sons Devinder Nath and Tarlok Nath. Devinder Nath died during the life time of his father Nand Lal. Plaintiff No. 1 is the widow of Devinder Nath whereas plaintiff Nos. 2 to 4 and defendant No. 3 are the four daughters of the deceased Devinder Nath. Nand Lal during his life time left a Will dated 4. 12. 1969. According to the terms of the Will, defendant No. 1 Tarlok Nath was made liable and responsible to give the plaintiffs by way of maintenance the 1/4th share of produce of Nand Lal's land situated in village Malia. Tarlok Nath was also made liable to pay all the expenses of the marriages of the daughters of Devinder Nath and in case he did not fulfil the obligations imposed upon him. the same could be got enforced against the land of Nand Lal. A charge was created for this purpose on the land bequeathed to defendant No. 1. Plaintiff No. 1 was to become owner of 1/2 share of a residential house at Qadian wherein the plaintiffs were living. It was averred in the plaint that Tarlok Nath, defendant No. 1 has failed to fulfil his obligations and liabilities imposed upon him towards the plaintiffs. It was specifically averred that defendant No. 1 has appropriated to himself the entire produce of 1/2 share of 581 kanals 18 marlas land in regard to the harvest of Kharif 1974 to Rabi 1977. It was further averred that defendant No. 1 did not spent anything' on the marriage of defendant No. 3 and refused to incur any expense when asked to do so compelling plaintiff No. 1 to obtain the amount needed for the expenses of marriage of defendant No. 3 from her brothers and other relations. The expenses of marriage amounted to more than Rs. 10,000/ -. The marriage was performed in 1. 975. It has further been averred that plaintiff No. 2 Sunita Devi has become of marriageable age and that her marriage was not being performed for want of money. The plaintiffs claimed a decree for a sum of Rs. 80,060/- (Rs. 10,000/towards the payment of produce, Rs: 10,000/- as marriage expenses of defendant No. 3 and another sum of Rs. 10,000/- as marriage expenses of plaintiff No. 2) besides claiming a decree for joint possession to the extent of 1/8th share of 531 kanals 18 marlas of land on the ground that neither defendant No. 1 fulfilled the obligations in respect of liabilities imposed upon him in the Will nor was he likely to fulfil the obligations in future.

(3.) THE suit was contested by defendant No. 1 alone. It was-pleaded that defendant No. 1 had been paying share of the produce to the plaintiffs regularly. It was further pleaded that the marriage of defendant No. 3 was performed by defendant No. 1. Willingness to perform the marriage of plaintiff No. 2 was also shown in the written statement provided the marriage was performed according to-his wishes. The execution of the Will by Nand Lal was admitted. The claim of the plaintiffs for grant of a decree for joint possession of 1/8th share of the land was contested. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed: