LODD GOVINDOSS KRISHNADOSS Vs. RUKMANI BHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs pray for the reduction of the maintenance decreed to the defendant in Civil Suit No. 187 of 1906 from Rs. 400 to Rs. 100 a month, on the ground that the maintenance decreed in that suit was in respect of the defendant and her daughter and that, owing to her daughter having been married, her maintenance was no longer obligatory on the defendant. The plaintiffs also pay that the decree in Civil Suit No. 187 of 1906 may be rectified by declaring that the amount decreed in that suit was really, for the maintenance of the defendant and her daughter and that the amount be reduced to Rs. 100 or such other sum as the Court may think proper.

(2.) The case for the plaintiffs is stated defendant, who is the step-mother of the 1st plaintiff, filed Civil Suit No. 56 of 1906 in the High Court claiming inter alia maintenance for herself and her daughter, that the said suit was permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh suit, as it was found that the suit was bad for misjoinder of parties and causes of action that she brought Civil Suits Nos. 187 of 1906 and 188 of 1906 claiming maintenance for herself and her daughter respectively, that the suits were heard together and compromised, the terms being that the plaintiff and her daughter should get Rs. 400 a month for their maintenance, that a decree was passed in Civil Suit No. 187 of 1906 awarding Rs. 400 for maintenance but that, by reason of some mistake, the decree, instead of stating that the maintenance was to be for the defendant and her daughter, simply states that the maintenance was to be for the defendant, that defendant s daughter was married in October 1913 and has attained puberty and gone to live with her husband and that, by reason of this fact, he has no longer to pay Rs. 400 a month but only Rs. 100.

(3.) The defendant filed a written statement, denying that the sum of Rs. 400 was the maintenance payable to her and her daughter and stating that the terms of the compromise are correctly set out in the decrees passed in Civil Suits Nos. 187 and 18 of 1906. She states that, although she claimed a much larger sum, Rs. 400 was, by consent of the parties, fixed for her maintenance, that her daughter was then of marriageable age, and that her maintenance was not taken into consideration when the settlement was arrived at. She also states that an application to amend the decree was made before Sir Arnold White but that it was refused, the Chief Justice holding that he had no power to vary his decree and that, even if he had, he would not do so on the merits. The defendant denies that the plaintiffs have any cause of action and states that the matter is res judicata and that the plaintiffs are not entitled to any relief. A preliminary issue was settled as to whether the plaintiffs are entitled to vary the terms of the razinama decree in Civil Suit No. 187 of 1906. For the reasons given in my judgment dated 8th December 1914, 1 held that the plaint disclosed a cause of action and that, on the allegations contained in the plaint, the plaintiffs were entitled to sue. I also held that the suit was not barred by res judicata. The following additional issues were then settled: