Decided on October 14,1954



- (1.) This is an appeal under Section 40 of the Displaced Persons (Debt Adjustment) Act, LXX of 1951 by Joginder Singh against an order and decree of the Tribunal appointed under the said Act. The parties to the case are related to each other and their pedigree table is :-
(2.) Baghel Singh owned considerable properties in U.P., Amritsar and Lahore districts. A short time before his death he executed a will on 7th May, 1924 and broadly speaking he bequeathed his U.P. property to Autar Singh and gave the property of the Lahore District to Sangat Singh on whose death Joginder Singh was to get it and it was also stated in the will that any person in possession of the Lahore property was liable to pay Rs. 400 per mensem to Chattar Kaur. The Amritsar property was given to Basant Kaure for life. It appears that Sangat Singh also died soon after his father and a dispute arose between Chattar Kaur and her nephew. Joginder Singh by a registered document dated 5th February, 1925 agreed to pay Rs. 700 per mensem to Chattar Kaur as maintenance in accordance with the statutes of the family on taking into consideration the modern expenses and it was further provided in the agreement that in case of default the widow will have the right to take possession of half share of Sangatwala land (Lahore property) for life and maintain herself from its income. It appears that Joginder Singh after paying the maintenance for some time made a default and the widow on 1st July, 1936 filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 50,400 as arrears of maintenance and for possession of half share of the Sangatwala land. This suit was, however, compromised on 18th August, 1937, and a consent decree was passed according to it. Under the compromise the widow agreed to accept Rs. 41,400 in full settlement of her claim of arrears of maintenance and in settlement of a sum of money due under another decree and also that this amount should be paid in four instalments. For the future the parties agreed that the 1925 agreement, will remain binding on them, i.e., Joginder Singh will pay Rs. 700 per mensem to the widow and in case of default it will be open to her to take possession of the land as contemplated therein. It appears that again a default was made in payment of the allowance which compelled the widow to apply for execution of the decree. Parties again for the third time compromised and the widow accepted Rs. 90,000 out of Rs. 1,40,000 due to her to be paid in instalments and it was further agreed - "Future maintenance with effect from 1st January, 1944 shall be paid six monthly and the first instalment of Rs. 4,200 shall be paid in July 1944 and so on during the lifetime of the widow and in case of default of payment of any instalment of maintenance it shall be open to the decree-holder to take out execution for the recovery of half of Sangatwala land."
(3.) It is the appellant's case that he paid the maintenance regularly to the widow in accordance with the 1944 agreement and that the last instalment of Rs. 4,200 was paid in July 1947. He also admits that he has not paid the stipulated amount since then. The third default compelled the widow on 1st August, 1950 to approach the executing Court for realisation of Rs. 25,200 as arrears of maintenance. While these execution proceedings were still pending Joginder Singh made the present application under Section 5 of the Debts Adjustment Act alleging that he was a displaced debtor and that neither in law nor under the above mentioned decree and agreements was he personally liable to pay the maintenance and that in any case Chattar Kaur has a charge on half the share of Sangatwala land and her only remedy is to enforce that charge.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.