VINEY MITTAL, J. - (1.) Prayer made in the application is allowed. Amended grounds of appeal are taken on record. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay in filing the present appeal is condoned. The prayer made in the application to treat the appellants indigent persons is allowed.
(2.) The plaintiffs are the appellants before this Court who have concurrently lost before the two Courts below. They filed a suit for maintenance, declaration and for permanent injunction. It was alleged by the plaintiffs that plaintiff No.1 had got married with one Labh Singh son of Jangir Singh and plaintiff No.2 was born out of the aforesaid wed lock. Labh Singh died in the year 1981 and thereafter plaintiff No.1 had entered into a karewa with defendant Atma Singh on December 25, 1983. The karewanama was reduced into writing on December 26, 1983. Thereafter, plaintiff No.1 was living as married wife of Atma Singh. Plaintiff No.2 was treated as his own son by him. Consequently, she claimed that the plaintiffs were entitled to maintenance being the wife and son of the defendant- Atma Singh.
(3.) The defendant contested the suit and claimed that plaintiff No.1 was earlier married with one Labh Singh son of Gurdev Singh and had children from the aforesaid marriage. In fact, she had a daughter who was 17 years of age. Later plaintiff No.1 married with one Labh Singh S/o Jangir Singh. It was specifically denied by the defendant that at no point of time, he had ever married with plaintiff No.1 nor that he had ever entered into Karewa with her. Execution of karewanama was also denied. It was claimed that the aforesaid Karewanama was a result of misrepresentation and undue influence. The defendant further claimed that he was a man of 90 years of age, and therefore, there was no question of his entering into Karewa with plaintiff No.1, as claimed by her. Both the Courts below have concurrently found it as a fact that defendant was utter stranger to plaintiff No.1 and as such there could be no karewa between plaintiff No.1 and defendant. During the course of evidence, plaintiff No.1 sought to prove that there was Anand Karaj ceremony between plaintiff No.1 and the defendant. The said evidence was rejected by the two Courts below holding that the same was beyond pleadings. It was also held that there was no custom that a karewa could be entered between strangers. Execution of the karewanama was also held to be doubtful, since the same was not proved by leading any cogent evidence. In these circumstances, the suit filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed by the learned trial Court and their appeal failed before the learned first Appellate Court.;