BRESTU RAM Vs. JALPU RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is the plaintiff 's appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge dismissing the suit for possession of the suit land and in the alternative for grant of maintenance at the rate of Rs. 2000/- per month for his maintenance.

(2.) The plaintiff instituted the suit on the allegations that the defendant is the pichlag son of the wife of plaintiff Nirtu Devi i.e. son born to her from her previous marriage. He pleads that the respondent-defendant had been visiting his house and in September, 1986 he assured that he would lookafter the plaintiff and his day to day needs in case the suit land was gifted to him. In case of the defendant not honouring the commitments made, the plaintiff would be entitled to revoke the gift deed and would be entitled to immediate possession of the suit property. The plaintiff pleaded that he executed a registered gift deed on 1.10.1996 (Ext.P1) gifting the suit land to the respondent-defendant with this condition and stipulation that in case the defendant would not render services to the plaintiff and look after him, the gift deed would be deemed to be revoked and the suit land would be revert to him. At the time when the gift deed was executed, the plaintiff did not require any assistance or help of the defendant in looking after him but now that the plaintiff had grown old, he is in dire need of the services of the defendant. The defendant refused to maintain him and therefore, he was constrained to file the present suit with a prayer that either the gift deed be revoked or the condition on which the land was gifted be invoked. Earlier, the plaintiff had instituted a civil suit No. 32 of 2003, titled as Brestu Vs. Jalpu, in the Court of learned Senior Sub Judge, Kullu which plaint was returned to the plaintiff for filing in the Court of competent jurisdiction as the value of the suit was beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court.

(3.) In defence, the respondent alleged that he has been maintaining the plaintiff and is still maintaining him. Other grounds of maintainability including the ground that the plaintiff is estopped from filing the suit were urged in defence. On merits, the defendant pleads that the plaintiff voluntarily executed the gift deed because he (the defendant) was rendering services to the plaintiff. The gift according to the defendant is unconditional. He pleads that since the daughter, son in law and sister of the plaintiff had settled in the same village, they are encouraging him to revoke the gift so that they can enjoy the property. On the pleadings of parties, the learned trial Court settled five issues of which issue No. 1 and 2 being crucial for the decision of the case i.e. as to whether the plaintiff was entitled for revocation of the gift or in the alternative whether he would be entitled to maintenance at the rate of Rs. 2000/- per month.