JAGAT RAM Vs. BASANTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only question to be decided in this appeal is whether the present suit for a declaration is competent.

(2.) JAGAT Ram plaintiff instituted the suit for a declaration that Mst. Basanti defendant No. 1 was not his wife and that Bhoda Singh defendant No. 2 was not his son. It was alleged that Mst. Basanti had effected a mutation of land in favour of Bhoda Singh describing him to be her son from the plaintiff and that an application for maintenance had also been filed against the plaintiff under Section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The defendants pleaded that defendant No. 1 was a legally wedded wife of the plaintiff and that defendant No. 2 was born from mm and that a suit for a negative declaration in respect of relationship was not competent. The learned Senior subordinate Judge decreed the plaintiff's suit holding that the plaintiff had a locus standi to institute the present suit, that the suit in the present form could proceed under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act and that defendant No. 1 was not the lawfully wedded wife of the plaintiff and that defendant No. 2 was not his son.

(3.) THE defendants feeling aggrieved preferred an appeal to the Court of the district Judge who held that the plaintiff's suit in the present form could not proceed and that he was not entitled to claim negative declaration in respect of his alleged relationship with the defendants, but in view of the fact that the finding of the other issues had been in favour of the plaintiff, the parties were left to bear their own costs throughout.