The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of grand-children to maintenance from their grand-father under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, even in the absence of ancestral property.

Vinod K. Sharma, J. - The defendant-appellant has come up in appeal against the judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below in a suit for declaration filed by the plaintiff-respondents claiming maintenance from the appellant-defendant being daughter-in-law and grand children of the defendant with a prayer to create a charge on the property of the defendant-appellant. The plaintiffs further sought a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his servants or agents from ousting the plaintiffs from House No. 226, Jujhar Nagar, Patiala illegally and by force and also sought restraint against alienation of the suit property.

2. The suit was filed by Smt. Satinder Kaur, widow of Gurmail Singh son of Nachhattar Singh along with Sugandeep Kaur, minor daughter of plaintiff No. 1 and grand-daughter of appellant and Gursimrandeep Singh, minor son of the plaintiff and grand-son of the defendant-appellant claiming maintenance on the plea that there was nobody to maintain the plaintiffs after the death of Shri Gurmail Singh, except the defendant. It was claimed that as the plaintiffs have no source of income, the defendant-appellant was duty bound to maintain them. It was further claimed that the defendant is owner in possession of the suit property detailed in the head-note of the plaint and that the plaintiffs are residing in the house mentioned in the plaint. It was also the case of the plaintiffs that the defendant has deserted them and thereby forced them to depend on the mercy of parents of plaintiff No. 1. It was further claimed that the defendant was a man of bad habits and was adamant to alienate the suit property with the purpose to deprive the plaintiffs of their right of maintenance and further an attempt is being made to dispossess the plaintiffs illegally and forcibly from the house in dispute as mentioned in the plaint. It was averred that the defendant was earning more than Rs. 2 lacs per year and a sum of Rs. 10,000/- per month was claimed for their maintenance and for education and a prayer for creating a charge on the suit property was also made. It was also the case of the plaintiffs that the defendant has already sold his property and was further trying to alienate the suit property as well as the house by entering into negotiations with some persons. According to the plaintiffs, a cause of action has arisen to the plaintiffs.

3. On the notice having been served on the defendant, the suit was contested raising preliminary objections that the suit, was framed was not maintainable; that the same was under-valued and that the plaintiffs had no cause of action. On merits, the defendant admitted that plaintiff No. 1 was widow of Gurmail Singh and daughter-in-law of defendant, whereas defendant Nos. 2 and 3 are the grand children of the defendant. The death of Gurmail Singh was admitted, but other averments were denied. It was claimed that plaintiff No. 1 is a professional stamp vendor and is doing the business of selling stamps in Tehsil Patiala, and is earning sufficient income to maintain herself as well as her children. It was also the case of the defendant that Gurmail Singh was a regular deed writer and was residing with the plaintiffs since long. On his death, he left some money and property which was in possession of plaintiff No. 1. The defendant also claimed that he is an old person and has got no source of income. He claimed that he had a small income from the agricultural land. It was also claimed that the defendant was not absolute owner of the land mentioned in the plaint, rather he was a co-owner of the suit land. It was also the case of the defendant that Gurmail Singh was already separate from the defendant since long. It was denied that the defendant was a roan of bad habits and that any attempt was being made to alienate the suit property. The claim of maintenance was also denied. It was also claimed that he generally remains ill and it was the duty of plaintiff No. 1 t