Judgement

APPEAL (No. 13 of 1934) from a judgment and decree of the High Court (March 17, 1932) affirming a judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge of Negapatam (February 14, 1929).

The question arising upon this appeal was whether the respondent, a Hindu widow, could maintain her suit for arrears of maintenance having regard to the terms of a document of December 28, 1912, which she pleaded was executed by her and her husbands brother with the object of evidencing the joint undivided status of the family. She alleged that the provision for her maintenance in the deed was never given effect to, and that it was intended to make a suitable provision in future for her maintenance.

The main question was whether oral evidence was admissible, in view of s. 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, to prove facts inconsistent with the terms of the document of December 28, 1912.

The facts and the relevant statutory provisions appear from the judgment of the Judicial Committee.

The Subordinate Judge held that the respondent could give oral evidence with a view to establishing that the provision in the deed regarding her maintenance was not intended to be acted upon; and that the deed did no