SRINATHJI Vs. MUSAMMAT PANNA KUNWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a defendants appeal arising out of a suit to recover a sum of money. The facts which have given rise to this litigation between the parties may briefly be stated as follows: Musammat Panna Kunwar, the plaintiff-respondent, is the daughter of one Pandit Baldeo Narain Singh who died on January 11, 1912. He was the owner and in possession of considerable property. On January 5, 19 : 2 B. Baldeo Narain Singh executed a will in favour of one Keshab Deo alias Kabli Singh, his nephew. Under the terms of the aforesaid will he directed Keshab Deo to" pay a sum of Rs. 500 yearly to Musammat Panna Kunwar and her son. On the death of Pandit Baldeo Narain Singh a dispute arose between the plaintiff on the one side and Keshab Deo on the other as regards the estate left by the deceased. The plaintiff Musammat Panna Kunwar instituted a suit to recover possession over the entire estate left by the deceased on July 11, 1912 on the allegations that she was the sole heiress of her father and that the will set up by the defendant was a forgery. The suit was decreed by the first Court but that decree was reversed by the High Court which decision was finally upheld by their Lordships of the Privy Council on December 16, 1925. On December 10, 1928, Musammat Panna Kunwar plaintiff-respondent instituted a suit to recover the arrears of maintenance from January 5,1912, till the date of the suit together with interest thereon, he claimed a sum of Rs. 8000 on account of principal and Rs. 4,547-80 for interest, the total amount claimed being Rs. 12,547-80. It appears that Babu Keshab Deo alias Kabli Singh had died before the date of the suit. He had on August 23, 1922, during the pendency of the appeal in the suit which the plaintiff had instituted for possession over the estate of her father, executed a will under which he left his entire estate which he had got under the will of Pandit Baldeo Narain Singh in favour of Thakur Sri Nathji an idol. The other defendants in the case before us are trustees of the temple in whose favour Keshab Deo had made a will.

(2.) The defendants resisted the claim and alleged inter alia that the suit was not within limitation that it was barred by the rule of res judicata and was not maintainable and that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover interest; all these pleas have been decided against the defendants and it has been held by the learned Subordinate Judge that the claim is within limitation and that the plaintiff is entitled to recover the amount for which she sued. The present appeal has been preferred against the decree made by the learned Subordinate Judge.

(3.) The plea that the suit of the plaintiff was barred under Section 11, Civil Procedure Code, was abandoned in this Court .