HANMANT BANDO KALE Vs. RANGO KALLO HUDDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal raises an important point of Hindu Law. It arises in this way : -

(2.) THE appellant before us is the husband of the original plaintiff. The plaintiff filed a suit in the year 1944 for maintenance and a decree for maintenance was passed against the appellant. An appeal was filed by the appellant against the said decree but that appeal was dismissed. A second appeal to the High Court also failed. Thereafter in the year 1948 execution proceedings were started by the plaintiff. Pending disposal of that execution proceedings the plaintiff on 27 -11 -48 assigned her right in respect of the arrears of maintenance upto 1948 in favour of her brother. Thereafter the plaintiff died. The assignee then filed an application in which he prayed that his name be substituted in the execution proceedings. That application. was resisted by the judgment -debtor on the ground that the property in question being the non -saudayika property of his wife could not be alienated except with consent of her husband, i.e. the appellant. The main question, therefore, which arose for consideration in that application was whether or not the arrears of maintenance in question was the saudayika or non -saudayika properly of the wife.

(3.) BOTH the courts held in favour of the assignee. They held that the property in question was saudayika property and hence this second appeal.