P.C. Pandit, J. - (1.)THIS is a defendant's appeal against the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge 1st Class, Bhatinda, decreeing the plaintiffs' suit for maintenance. In August, 1958, Bharpur Kaur brought a suit in forma pauperis, on her own as well as on behalf of her minor daughter Rajwant Kaur, against her step -son Devinder Singh for the recovery of maintenance allowance @ Rs. 200/ - per month. Her allegations were that she was the widow of Balwant Singh, father of the defendant, and Rajwant Kaur was born to her from the loins of Balwant Singh. Balwant Singh died about 13 years back and after his death his property was inherited by his two sons Balbir Singh and Devinder Singh. Balbir Singh died without leaving any child or widow. After his death, the entire property came into the possession of Devinder Singh defendant. After the death of Balwant Singh, the defendant and Balbir Singh turned plaintiff No. 1 out of the house and refused to pay her any maintenance. The plaintiff along with her children went to the house of her father. The defendant had property in three villages, namely, Kuti, Haripura and Kalyan, which yielded an income of Rs. 6000/ - per annum. He had houses in Bhatinda City, the annual rent of which was about Rs. 6000/ -. According to her, she was entitled to receive maintenance from the defendant by custom as well as under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. She claimed maintenance @ Rs. 100/ - for herself and Rs. 100/ -for her minor daughter.
(2.)THE suit was resisted by the defendant, who denied that the plaintiff was a pauper. He pleaded that neither the plaintiff was the widow of Balwant Singh deceased nor was Rajwant Kaur his daughter. It was admitted that the property of Balwant Singh was inherited by his two sons Devinder Singh and his brother Balbir Singh. Subsequently, Balbir Singh died issueless without leaving any widow and, for that reason, the entire property came into the bands of the defendant. It was stated that the plaintiffs were not entitled to any maintenance. It was admitted that the defendant had agricultural lands at villages Haripura and Kalyan Sukha, but income from those lands was not so much as alleged by the plaintiffs. It was also admitted that the defendant had residential property at Bhatinda, tut its income also had been wrongly assessed by the plaintiffs. The defendant had two daughters, a son, a mother and wife and he maintained them with great difficulty. The income from land and residential property was not more than Rs. 1800/ - per annum, with which he and his family could hardly maintain themselves.
It might be mentioned that the defendant had filed two written statements, one dated 2nd March, 1958 and the other dated 8th of September, 1960. The former had been put in while denying the claim of the plaintiffs to sue as pauperis. In para 10 thereof, he had stated that the income from the houses in Bhatinda was Rs. 1200/ - per annum, out of which Rs. 400/ - had to be paid as tax and Rs. 400/ - for repairs. Besides that, income from agricultural land situate at villages Kuti and Haripur was much less, that is, only Rs. 300/ - or Rs. 400/ -.

(3.)THE trial Judge held that the plaintiffs were not paupers. But this order was subsequently set aside by this Court on 15th July, 1960 when the plaintiffs came here in revision against the same.