SIDDEGOWDA Vs. LAKKAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal under S. 100 CPC as it was before the 1977 amendment is by the 2nd defendant against the concurrent findings of the Courts below.

(2.) The facts may be briefly stated a,s fallows: The 1st respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for maintenance against the respondent-defendant-1 who had deserted her for over a period of eight years. She made the appellant-defendant No. 2 a party to the proceedings because about three months prior to, the filing of the suit the appellant had purchased from defendant No. 1 (respondent-2) two items of property described in the suit as items 3 and 4 of the suit schedule. The respondent-plaintiff, among other reliefs, sought for a charge to be created on suit schedule items 3 and 4 as well, for ensuring and securing payment of her maintenance if she succeded in the suit

(3.) Among several issues framed by the trial Court issue No. 5 was as follows: "Is not the 2nd defendant a bonafide purchaser for value without notice" The trial Court came to the conclusion, on appreciating the evidence on record, that the sale in favour of the appellant as per Ex-D1 was a transaction which was entered into between the defendants after coming to know that the plaintiff was going to present a suit for maintenance. It was in that circumstance that the trial court held that under the terms of S. 39 of the Transfer of Property Act the suit schedule properties 3 and 4 were liable to be charged for ensuring payment of maintenance to the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree in so far as it affected the suit schedule properties 3 and 4, the appellant preferred R.A. 278/ 1972 in the lower appellate Court. The lower appellate Court also came to the conclusion, on appreciating the evidence on record, that issue No, 5 should be answered against the appellant.