SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1992 Supreme(Del) 303

High Court Of Delhi
KANWAL SINGH - Appellant
Versus
BISHAN SINGH - Respondent
Suit 510 of 1985
Decided On : 05/21/1992

Advocates Appeared:
G.N.AGGARWAL, MAHESH CHANDRA GUPTA

Headnote:Civil Procedure Code 1908 - Order 39 Rules 1 & 2. Application by wife and minor son of decased member of HUF for maintenance. Share of deceased in ancestral property. Defendants earning rent from property. Wife and minor son of deceased can ask for interim maintenance for meeting their day to day needs during pendency of suit.

       Held:

       I am prima facie of the view that since the defendants are enjoying and earning the rent from the property which has fallen to them and in which the plaintiffs are also alleging their share, they should be given some interim relief for meeting their day to day needs.

       Taking into consideration the needs of defendants 2 and 3, widow and a minor child who is studing, I think it will be in the interest of justice, if plaintiffs 2 and 3 are allowed a sum of Rs. 1500/- per month from the rent recovered by the defendants from the date of this order. Since the property in dispute is being enjoyed by all the defendants, and no merely by the defendants 7 to 11, there is no impediment for not giving direction to all the defendants to pay Rs. 1500/- per month jointly to plaintiffs 2 and 3 from the rent they are collecting.

USHA MEHRA, J.

( 1 ) THIS order will dispose of an application filed by plaintiffs 2 and 3 seeking the relief of maintenance Co enable them to meet their day to day expenses and also to meet the education expenses of the plaintiff No. 3 who is a student. In order to appreciate their contents, in short the case of the. : plaintiff is that plaintiff No. 2 is the widow of Hanumant Singh, predeceased son of Shri Har Kishan and plaintiff No. 3, Master Satish is the minor son of Late Shri Hanumant Singh. Late Har Kishan Singh who was the father-in-law of plaintiff No. 2 and grand father of plaintiff No. 3, inherited an ancestoral land, which was acquired-by the Government of India under the Land Acquisition Act. He received compensation because of the ancestoral lands being acquired by the Government. With the amount of that compensation, Har Kishan purchased certain lands in village Sahibabad, Daulat Pur and in Delhi Estate Jointly in his name and in the name of Smt. Sarwan Kaur wife of one his sons Shri Kartar Siagh. Certain lands were sold by late Shri Harkishan. The entire sale proceeds which came in the hands of Shri Har Kishan was ancestoral property. Late Har Kishan had also some ancesstoral lands besides four ancestoral pucca houses in Pitam Pura and a plot bearing Khasra No. 460/1, measuring about 2 bighas along with boundary walls with a covered passage and vacant shops on the back side of the said passage. On his death he left certain moveable properties which are in possession of Shri Kartar Singh, defendant No. 2 herein. It is further the case of the plaintiffs that before the death of Har Kishan, There was a notional partition of the ancestoral property and each co-parceaer got 1/6th share of the moveable properties m the hands of Har Kishaii. Plaintiffs No. 2 and 3 being the legal heirs of Shri Hanumant Singh, have asked for the paartition after the death of Har Kishan but the defendants are neither giving possession of the property nor giving any share out of the same though defendants themselves are enjoying the ancestoral property and the proceeds thereof, thereby depriving the plaintiffs the benefit of the same.

( 2 ) IT is in this background that this application has been filed by plaintiff No. 2 and 3, the legal heirs of late Shri Hanumant Singh, (pre deceased son of Late Har Kishan) on the ground that they have no independent source of income and their livelihood also depends on this ancestoral property where from the defendants are receiving rents but are not sharing with the plaintiffs. Therefore, they claimed that Rs. 10,000. 00 be paid to the plantiffs till the appointment of Reciever and they should also pay Rs. 5,000. 00 per month to plaintiffs 2 and 3 to enable them to meet their day to day expenses. This application has been contested by defendant No. 2 inter alia on the grounds that the plaintiffs have no share outof the suit properties. Therefore, they are not entitled to receive any amount nor the plaintiffs have given any specific mode of income which the defendants are earning and realising out of the suit property. Even otherwise, if the plaintiffs suceedes the suit, they and defendants 7 to II would get only one share in equal shares. And if this application, is maintainable, it is only against defendants 7 to II who are liable and bound to pay the interm relief to the applicants. No other defendant has filed the reply to this application of the plaintiffs,

( 3 ) ON the day the arguments were beared, the plaintiff filed an affidavit of Dr. Kanwal Singh, son of late Sh. Har Kishan (plaintiff No. 1 herein) who indicated that there are about 17 shops which have been let out and the rents which is being collected ranges from Rs. l,500. 00 p. m. to 2. 000. 00 per month. By this affidavit, he has stated that two shops are given by Kartar Singh, defendant No. 2, four by Vijender Singh, defendant No 7, two by Bishan Singh, defendant No. 1 and five by Jaswant Singh through his wife Smt. Dhanpati, defendant









Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top