LAWS(PVC)-1936-2-178

MT TIJJO Vs. CHIRANJILAL

Decided On February 03, 1936
MT TIJJO Appellant
V/S
CHIRANJILAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiff's second appeal arising out of a suit to recover a sum of money by enforcement of a charge. The facts which have given rise to this litigation between the parties can briefly be stated as follows: One Makhan Lal was the owner of extensive immoveable property in the District of Aligarh. He had a sister whose son was one Shankar Lal. Chiranji Lal is the natural father of Shankar Lal. One Mt. Tijjo was the sister of Makhan Lal's wife and it appears that she lived in the house of Makhan Lal and looked after Shankar Lal during his minority. Makhan Lal died about the year 1924. On his death Shankar Lal, son of Chiranji Lal, under the guardianship of one Babu Lal, obtained possession over the estate left by the deceased Makhan Lal.

(2.) Shankar Lal died about the year 1926 and then dispute arose. Chiranji Lal, the natural father of Shankar Lal, claimed the properties of Makhan Lal as heir to his own son, Shankar Lal. His case was that Shankar Lal had been adopted by Makhan Lal and on Shankar Lal's death, he (Chiranji Lal) was entitled to the estate. The suit was resisted by some other persons. Eventually there was a compromise between the contending parties on 1 February 1927. Under the terms of this compromise major portion of the estate went to Chiranji Lal. It was agreed that Mt. Tijjo would occupy one residential house during her life-time and that she would further get a maintenance allowance of Rs. 10 monthly till her death. This allowance was made a charge over some immoveable property which is specified in the plaint in this case. The plaintiff Mt. Tijjo came to Court to recover a sum of Rs. 670 on account of past arrears of maintenance allowance by the sale of the property which was charged in respect of this maintenance allowance. Chiranji Lal, the defendant, contested the claim. The principal pleas taken by him were that as Mt. Tijjo was not a party to the compromise, she could not maintain a suit in respect of the amount alleged to be due to her and further that as the deed under which a charge is alleged to have been created was not registered, the charge was not enforcible. Another plea taken by Chiranji Lal was that the plaintiff had been occupying a room in another house belonging to his estate without payment of any rent and that she had let out the house reserved for her residence on a monthly rent of more than Rs. 10, and in view of these circumstances she was not entitled to relief. The suit was dismissed by both the Courts and the plaintiff has come up in second appeal before this Court.

(3.) The first question for consideration in this case is whether the plaintiff is entitled to enforce the charge. The position is this: Chiranji Lal and some other persons were litigating about the estate which once belonged to Chiranji Lal's son, Shankar Lal. A compromise was arrived at under which they settled their differences, each getting a portion in the estate. There was a further agreement, between the two under which the defendant undertook to pay a sum of money monthly to Mt. Tijjo. The terms of the compromise were incorporated in the decree which was eventually prepared in that case. The contention of the learned Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant is that this created a valid charge which could be enforced by her. On the other hand the contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent is that, as the deed of compromise was not registered, no valid charge was created. This is one of the questions for determination in this case.