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

1978 Supreme(Del) 80

F.S.GILL
S. FAUJA SINGH – Appellant
Versus
KULDIP SINGH – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
C.L.ITORORA, L.B.GUPTA, S.L.Bhatia

( 51 ) ADMITTEDLY T. S Mann was a low paid employee. So was Amarjit Kaur, defendant No. 4. From their meagre salaries they could hardly make any saving for the construction of the house. It has been stated by Amarjit Kaur in her letter Ex. P. 34 written to the plaintiff that she and her husband had been paying Rs. 65. 00 each to Major Jaswant Singh during their stay with him and ever after the death of T. S. Mann, Amarjit Kaur had been paying Rs. 70. 00 per mensem to her father. Paying of the mess expenses to her father, more especially when she had become a widow, shows that Major Jaswant Singh was in bad financial position. It was for this reason that he had not shirked getting mess charges from his daughter even after she had become a widow. I find force in the contention of Shri Gupta that Major Jaswant Singh, who was getting mess charges from his daughter after T. S. Mann's death, could not be expected to help his daughter in the construction of the house. This fact alone seems to be sufficient to show that Major Jaswant Singh had not at all helped in the construction of the house.

( 52 ) THE other source of income stated by Amarjit Kaur is from tuition. The evidence produced








































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top