JUDGMENT 1. The plaint is a very confused and badly expressed document, but in substance the plaintiff appears to claim that the arrangement referred to as to her maintenance is not binding on her and her first prayer is for a decree against the 1st defendant, her adopted son, for Rs. 3,000 which she says she is prepared to accept owing to the difficulty of proving the proper amount to which she is entitled as maintenance. On this prayer it is open to the Court to award her whatever she is entitled to for maintenance. We think the claim against the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 in the 2nd prayer is on the footing of the agreement and ought to have been regarded as an alternative claim in respect of the same matter See Aiyathurai Ravuthan v. Santhu Meera Ravuthan 18 M.L.J. 238 in case the first claim was held bad. We must accordingly set aside the decree and remand the suit to the Lower Court for disposal according to law. 2. Costs will abide the result.