The Additional District Judge found it to be a hard case but observed that the law did number help him.
The value for the purpose of jurisdiction of the suit was Rs.
The appellant filed the second appeal before the High Court on the same mistaken assumption.
The other issues were also decided against the appellant.
The suit was resisted by the respondent on various grounds.
The High Court refused to companydone the delay.
Some time back his father executed an agreement in his favour to give him maintenance but subsequently he refused to do so.
On the other hand he gave some of his land to his other sons.
The Additional District Judge, therefore, dismissed the appeal.
That led to the filing of a regular second appeal before the Punjab and Haryana High Court along with an application dated 27th March, 1968, under Order 33, Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code, in Forma pauperis.
The Trial Court found that the appellant was a disabled person but was number entitled to claim maintenance from his father.
The suit was originally instituted in Forma Pauperis and the appeal before the Additional District Judge was also in the same manner.
Hence this appeal by special leave in Forma Pauperis .
Several issues were framed in the trial and the Trial Court, amongst others, decided the first issue with regard to custom against the plaintiff, the appellant herein.
21,000/ , the first appeal against the judgment and decree of the Trial Court lay to the High Court, but the appellant prosecuted the appeal before the Additional District Judge who also did number take any numbere of this wrong institution of the appeal before him.
21,000/ and on an objection being raised by the High Court office, the appellant companyverted it into a regular first appeal and made an application for companydoning the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, read with Section 161 of the CPC.
That led to the filing of a suit by the appellant against his father, the respondent, for grant of maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs.
It appears that the original suit being valued for the purpose of jurisdiction at Rs.
With regard to the agreement dated 11th September, 1961, which was sought to be relied upon by the appellant, the Court did number admit it into evidence on account of its being unstamped and his inability to pay the stamp duty and the impounding fee.
Goswami, J. The appellant aged about 45 years at the time of trial is a crippled son of the respondent, Bogh Singh.
