SM JANAKI BALA DEBYA Vs. MAHESWAR DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a suit for recovery of arrears of maintenance. The plaintiff is the widow of the only predeceased son of Bidyadhar of whom the defendant is the surviving brother. Some years after Bidyadhar's death his widow Sakuntala brought a suit (No. 224 of 1921) under Section 9, Specific Relief Act, against the defendant for possession of certain lands on the allegation that since the death of her huaband who was separate from the defendant, she had been in possession of the disputed lands, but the defendant wrongfully dispossessed her therefrom. In that suit a compromise decree was passed on 16 December 1921 to the effect that the defendant would remain in exclusive possession of all the lands standing in his name or in the name of his deceased brother and that he would pay maintenance in kind to Sakuntala during her lifetime, and after her death he would give similar maintenance to her daughter-in-law, the present plaintiff, to the extent of 21 aras of paddy, 6 kuris of mug and 2 kuris of biri every year and if he failed to deliver the grains he would be liable to pay the equivalent market value of the same.

(2.) The plaintiff's case is that in accordance with the terms of the compromise decree the defendant was giving maintenance to Sakuntala during her lifetime and after her death he also gave the plaintiff maintenance for some years, but subsequently he stopped payment. Accordingly she brought the present suit for recovery of arrears of maintenance for the years 1342-41 Fs. claiming Rs. 562-20 as the market value of the grains, together with interest at one per cent, per mensem, total Rs. 650. The claim was laid entirely on the basis of the terms of the compromise decree.

(3.) The suit was resisted by the defendant on all possible grounds, but the Munsif gave the plaintiff a decree, reducing interest to six per cent, per annum. On appeal by the defendant the learned Subordinate Judge dismissed the entire suit, holding that the plaintiff, not being a party to the compromise, was not entitled to maintain the suit. On the merits of her claim, however, he held that it was correct except that she would not be entitled to interest; hence this second appeal by the plaintiff. Mr. B.C. De on behalf of the appellant oontends that the plaintiff, although not a party to the compromise, is entitled to obtain the maintenance from the defendant. He relies on Section 23(c), Specific Relief Act, (Act 1 of 1877) and on the decisions in Khwaja Muhammad Khan V/s. Husaini Begam 32 All. 410, Awadh Sarju Prasad Singh V/s. Sita Ram Singh 29 All. 37, Protap Narain Mukerjee v. Sarat Kumari Debi 5 C.W.N. 386, Debnarayan Dutt V/s. lal Ghose A.I.R. 1914 Cal. 129 and Kshirodebihari Dutt V/s. Mangobinda A.I.R. 1934 Cal. 682; Mr. B.C. De also refers to certain English decisions, but as I shall presently show, this case is clearly governed by the provisions of Section 23(c), Specific Relief Act. That section provides that: Except as otherwise provided by this chapter the specific performance of a contract may be obtained by....(c) where the contract is a settlement on marriage, or a compromise of doubtful rights between members of the same family, any person beneficially entitled thereunder.