(1.) BY this common judgment, I will be disposing of R. S. A. No. 2514 of 1991 filed by the defendant-appellant Nos. 1 and 2 against the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court dated 21. 9. 1991, whereby their Civil appeal No. 51 of 1988 titled Nirmal Singh v. Jagir Kaur was dismissed and Cross-Objection No. 21-C of 1992 filed by the plaintiff seeking further enhancement of compensation over and above Rs. 40,000 granted by the lower appellate court vide order dated 21. 9. 1991 while deciding the civil Appeal No. 46 of 29. 9. 1988 titled jagir Kaur v. Pal Singh.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that Jagir Kaur, wife of Wazir Singh instituted a suit in forma pauperis for the recovery of Rs. 3,00,000 against the defendants pal Singh and others by way of damages suffered by her on account of murder of her son Surjit Singh at the hands of Pal Singh and Nirmal Singh, defendant nos. 1 and 2 respectively. It was alleged in the plaint that Surjit Singh, son of the plaintiff, was working as a Revenue Patwari and drawing Rs. 700 per month as salary as on 29. 5. 1984, who was gunned down by defendant No. 1 at the instigation of defendant No. 2 for which defendant nos. 1 and 2 were tried in a case registered vide F. I. R. No. 132 dated 29. 5. 1984 at Police Station Sadar, Muktsar, under sections 302/34, Indian Penal Code. It was further alleged that deceased Surjit Singh was 24 years of age at the time of his murder. Though the longevity in the family of surjit Singh is very high which goes up to 90 years and Surjit Singh would have lived up to the age of 90 years had his life not been cut short due to murder. The plaintiff claimed herself dependent upon Surjit singh and because of this loss, she claimed damages to the tune of Rs. 3,00,000.
(3.) PAL Singh and Nirmal Singh, defendant nos. 1 and 2 respectively contested the suit claiming that they had not murdered surjit Singh and that Jagir Kaur plaintiff was not dependent upon her son but she was dependent upon her husband, who was alive.