The word "heir" in Section 22 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act includes legatees, and legatees are liable to maintain the dependants of the deceased.

I.D.Dua, J.

1. In order to understand the precise dispute, it is desirable to set out the pedigree-table of the parties:

LEHNA SINGH

__________________|_______________

| |

Santa Singh Nanta Singh

| ___________|__________

Ind Kaur, | |

his widow, who Gulzara (Tej Kaur,

contracted karewa Singh his widow). Gulzara

with Nanta Singh his son. Singh was born from

the loins of Nanta

Singh and the womb

of Ind Kaur.

2 Nanta Singh died on the 16th September 1955 and on his death Gulzara Singh defendant got the entire land belonging to the deceased mutated in his own name. The plaintiff claiming to be entitled to half the property left by Nanta Singh, instituted the present suit for possession of half share of the land and the houses in dispute. She further prayed for a declaration that she was also entitled to a sum of Rs. 5,000/- lying deposited in the State Bank of India, Ludhiana, and the Post Office Saving Bank Ludhiana. A declaration was also claimed to the effect that the order dated 28-2-1958 granting succession certificate to the defendant was null and void as against the plaintiff. In the alternative, maintenance allowance was claimed at the rate of Rs. 100/-per month and a decree for the recovery of Rs. 3,000/- on account of past maintenance was also prayed for.

3. The defendant resisted the plaintiffs claim and even went to the length of denying the plaintiffs marriage or karewa with Nanta Singh. It was also pleaded that the houses in question had been acquired and owned by the defendant himself and were not a part of the estate of Nanta Singh deceased. A will dated 27th September 1950 purporting to have been executed by Nanta Singh in favour of the defendant was also relied upon and it was further pleaded that a probate of the said will had already been obtained by him from the Supreme Court of British Columbia with the result that the plaintiff had no claim over the property left by Nanta Singh.

4. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:

1. Is the plaintiff widow of Nanta Singh deceased?

2. If issue No. 1 is proved, is the plaintiff not entitled to get possession of the land in suit?

3. Are the houses in suit part of the estate left by Nanta Singh deceased?

4. If issue No. 2 is decided against the defendant and issue No. 3 decided in favour of the defendant, is the plaintiff entitled to claiming maintenance from the defendant? If so, at what rate and from what date?

5. Has the deceased made any will in regard to his entire estate in favour of the defendant?

5. The trial Court, while disposing of issue No. 1, described the plaintiffs witnesses to be respectable and the evidence led by the defendant not to be so reliable as that of the plaintiff. Non-production of Smt. Ind Kaur, the real mother of the defendant who was stated to be alive, also weighed with the Court below and this according to the learned Judge gave rise to a strong presumption in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

Holding the plaintiffs evidence to be much more weighty than that led by the defendant, the Court unhesitatingly and without the least doubt found the plaintiff to be the widow of Nanta Singh deceased. Issue No. 5 was, however, decided in favour of the defendant with the result that the plaintiff was held disentitled to get possession of the land in Suit. Under issue No. 3, the houses in question were held not to have been proved to be a part of the estate left by the deceased.

Issue No. 4, as is obvious from the judgment of the Court below, was not seriously contested