RAMA VANTI Vs. BAL KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the decision of the learned Senior Sub Judge, Hoshiarpur, rejecting the objections of the judgment debtor against the execution of the decree dated the 12th March, 1923. The judgment which is the basis of this decree is reported in Mussammat Bal Kaur v. Msf. Devki, I.L.R. 4 Lah. 236 and the entire fate of the present objection petition hinges on the true interpretation of that decree.

(2.) MUKAND was the last male holder. He was a Joshi Brahamin of Hoshiarpur. He died in 1914. On his death he left a predeceased son's widow Mst. Devki and a daughter from her Mst. Rama Banti. He also left two daughters Mst. Bal Kaur and Mst. Jamna Devi. His daughter took out a succession certificate and also claimed that they were his heirs in preference to the pre -deceased son's widow and her daughter. They also brought a suit far a declaration to that effect. The defendants to that suit were Mst. Devki and her daughter. Their plea was a that by special custom the predeceased son's widow was a preferential heir as. against the daughters of the last male holder and in the alternative that she and her daughter had a right of residence in the family house and had to be maintained out of the estate of Mukand. It was also pleaded that the money required for the marriage of granddaughter was to be paid out of his estate. In the trial Court, the right of residence etc. was conceded, but there was disagreement as to the amount of maintenance allowance and also as to what sum was to be fixed for the marriage expenses The trial Court held that the pre -deceased son's widow and her daughter were preferential heirs to the daughters of the last male holder Mukand. On appeal by Mst. Bal Kaur, one of the daughters of Mukand, the decision of the trial Court was reversed and it was held that the predeceased son's widow and her daughter were not preferential heirs in presence of the daughters of the last male holder. But by consent of parties, it was settled that one house and two shops would be made available for maintenance to the pre -deceased son's widow and her daughter. A sum of Rs. 1,000/ - was also fixed for the marriage expenses of the pre -deceased son's daughter. The income of the two shops was Rs..16/ -, Rs. 10/ - from the one and Rs. 6/ - from the other. The cost of repair of the shops was to be paid by the pre -deceased son's widow and her daughter. On the marriage of the daughter, the shop carrying Rs. 6/ - as rent was to revert to the appellant (Bal Kaur) and her sister. The house and the second shop were to remain in possession of the pre -deceased son's widow for maintenance till her death. It is not disputed that the pre -deceased son's widow (Devki) continued to live in the house and also continued to enjoy the rent of the shop. The daughter was married and one of the shops has gone back to Bal Kaur and her sister. The present dispute only concerns the house and the shop, which were left for maintenance of Mst. Devki Mst. Devki died admittedly after the year 1956 and after the coming into force of Hindu Succession Act. After her death, execution of the decree dated 12th March 1923 was taken out by Mst. Bal Kaur. Her application was objected to by Mohan Lal on behalf of Bal Kaur's sister and the daughter of Devki. I am not concerned with the objection petition of Mohan Lal. His objections were rejected. He has not appealed. I am only concerned with the objection petition of Mst. Devki's daughter, whose objections were rejected by the executing Court. Her case is that her mother died after the Hindu Succession Act had come into force and she was in possession of the property in dispute in lieu of maintenance and therefore, she had become its absolute owner by reason of Section 14 (1) of the Hindu Succession Act. This contention was controverted by Mst. Bal Kaur and the following issue was framed :

(3.) FOR the reasons recorded above, I allow this appeal and set aside the judgment of the trial Court and allow the objections of the appellant. In the circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs throughout.