- (1.) ADITYA Prasad died possessed of some immoveable property. He left no issue but he left a widow Thakur Dei who succeeded to his property in May 1921, She obtained mutation of names in her favour. Thereafter on the 22nd of May, 1925, Thakur Dei in consideration of a sum of Rs. 2,000/- paid in cash and in lieu of a promise to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs. 5/- contained in the document, executed a deed of relinquishment in favour of Dharam Raj, defendant No. 1, jitau, father of respondents Nos. 2 to 4, Khelan, father of respondents Nos. 5 to 9 and Ram Lal. It is agreed that these four persons were at the time nearest reversioners of Aditya Prasad. Ram Lal died and his rights were inherited by Dharam Raj and Jitau.
(2.) IN 1933 Thakur Dei instituted a suit for possession of the property which she had relinquished on the allegation that she was then a minor and that therefore the deed of relinquishment was void. Khelan did not contest the suit. The other persons did contest. Eventually it was found that thakur Dei was a minor at the date when she executed the deed of relinquishment which was, therefore, void. The Court however, ordered that Thakur Dei should refund a sum of Rs. 1,500/to dharam Raj and Jitau before she could be entitled to possession of three-quarters of the property covered by the deed of relinquishment. With regard to one-quarter, which fell to the share of Khelan a decree for immediate possession was passed in favour of Thakur Dei. Thakur dei never paid the sum of Rs. 1,500 and consequently she did not obtain possession of three-quarters of the property.
(3.) ON the 30th of May, 1945, Thakur Dei instituted the suit out of which this appeal arises claiming a sum of Rs. 135/- as maintenance allowance for three years from Dharam Raj and the sons of Jitau. She also impleaded the sons of Khelan but stated in the plaint that they were impleaded as 'pro forma' defendants and no claim was made against them. The maintenance was claimed at the rate of Rs. 3/12/- per month, Re. 1/4/- per month being the share of Khelan's branch, which was not claimed.;