SURJITINDER SINGH Vs. JASWANT KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SMT . Gulab Kaur filed the suit on May 22, 1956. against Surjit Inder Singh, her grandson, for the recovery of Rs. 1,000.00 per mensem, as maintenance allowance, or. in the alternative, for possession of half share of the property of her deceased husband, in forma pauperis. She alleged that her husband. S. Gobinder Singh Sibia, died on December 15, 1954, and at the time of his death, he owned and possessed considerable property, moveable and immovable, in the Districts of Sangrur, Patiala, Ludhiana and Simla. After his death, Surjit Inder Singh. defendant, took possession of his entire moveable and immovable property as his heir. S. Gobinder Singh had two wives, that is, the plaintiff and Smt. Dalip Kaur. The plaintiff was sonless while Smt. Dalip Kaur gave birth to one son, S. Gurbachan Singh, father of the defendant. S. Gurbachan Singh died during the lifetime of his father and. therefore, Surjit Inder Singh was entitled to inherit the property of his grandfather. He took possession of the entire property as owner and turned out the plaintiff from the house. She, therefore, claimed maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1,000.00 per mensem or in the alternative, half of the property details of which were mentioned in the plaint. The suit was resisted by the defendant who admitted that the plaintiff was the widow of his grandfather. S. Gobinder Singh and also that he was in possession of the property described in the plaint, but denied that the plaintiff was ever turned out of the house by him. He pleaded that she had left her husband in his lifetime and had been living away from him for about 40 years before his death and thus she had forfeited all her rights to maintenance. It was also pleaded that the amount of maintenance claimed was excessive. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned District Judge framed the following issues on February 1, 1957:-1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to maintenance. If so, in what amount ?

(2.) WHETHER the plaintiff had deserted her husband and she is disentitled to claim maintenance on that score ?

(3.) WHETHER the will is ineffective without the letters of probate having been taken out on the basis thereof ? Another issue was added on July 9. 195s, as under:- Whether the parties are governed by custom of the agriculturists of the Punjab and erstwhile Pepsu in the matters of maintenance. If so, whether the plaintiff is entitled to a share in the property of the defendant and to what extent? On June 25, 1958, Smt. Gulab Kaur moved an application for the amendment of the plaint so as to substitute her claim for the possession of half of the property in lieu of maintenance by one for possession of 1/2 share of the property as heir, but that application was rejected by the learned trial Court. The amendment was, however, allowed by this Court in revision. Consequently, the amended plaint was filed on March 4, 1959, in which it was prayed that "a decree for declaration to the effect that the plaintiff is entitled to receive one thousand rupees per mensem, viz. , Rs. 12,000.00 per annum as maintenance allowance during her lifetime and in the alternative to a decree for possession of 1/2 share of the property of her deceased husband by way of inheritance qua the defendant, step grandson of the plaintiff according to general custom of Punjab and District Ludhiana, Tehsil Jagraon, and the same may be granted with costs against the defendant in favour of the plaintiff, or any other relief deemed expedient by the Court, may be granted. " In the plaint it was alleged that the plaintiff had asked the defendant to agree to pay her Rs. 1,000.00 per mensem as maintenance allowance during her lifetime or deliver the possession of 1/2 share of the property left by her husband, to her as his heir, but he had refused to do so. Written statement to the amended plaint was filed on March 6, 1959, Soon thereafter Smt. Gulab Kaur died on March 10, 1959, and her daughter Smt. Jaswant Kaur made an application for being brought on the record as her legal representative. That application was resisted by the defendant but was allowed by the learned Subordinate Judge 1st Class, Sangrur, on March 15, 1960. He, however, held that the right of the plaintiff to sue for possession of 1/2 share of the property of S. Gobinder Singh, as heir, survived and Smt. Jaswant Kaur was entitled to prosecute the same, but the suit with regard to maintenance allowance abated as that was a purely personal right of Smt Gulab Kaur, which died with her. The issues bearing on maintenance thus became redundant. Smt. Jaswant Kaur also made an application that she should be permitted to continue the suit in forma pauperis. This plea was resisted by the defendant, but was allowed by the learned trial Court by order dated August 9, 1962. Smt. Jaswant Kaur then filed replication to the written statement of the defendant on September 18, 1962. On October 1, 1962, the following additional issues were framed on the basis of the additional pleadings of the parties:-