K TVENKATA GOWDA Vs. DEVAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an execution appeal by Judgment-debtor 5 from the orders of the Court below allowing execution to proceed against the property of which he had become the purchaser in a previous execution sale.

(2.) The material facts are these: In original suit No. 700 of 1953 on the file of the Munsiff, Mandya, a decree was made for the payment of maintenance in favour of the respondent Devamma, and as security for the payment at that maintenance a charge was created on her husband's share in the family properties. For the recovery of the maintenance which had accrued toner, the respondent brought her husband's share in seven items of properties to sale in Execution case No. 652 of 1954. On September 5, 1955, tile appellant purchased those properties. In execution case No. 757 of 1959, the respondent again-brought those very properties to sale for recovery of maintenance which had accrued to her after the presentation of the previous execution application, and, the objection to the execution sought by the respondent was that the appellant's purchase of the properties in the previous execution proceedings had wiped out the charge created by the decree in favour of the respondent and that the appellant was the owner of those properties free from any such charge. That contention was overruled by the Munsiff and the appeal from his decision to the Civle-Judge was also dismissed.

(3.) Mr. Narasimha Murthy contends that since the charge created by the decree was a compendious charge for the payment of the maintenance payable to the respondent under the decree, when the respondent brought the properties purchased by the appellant to sale for the recovery of the maintenance which had become due and those properties were purchased by the appellant, those properties could never again be brought to sale for recovery of the maintenance which had subsequently become due to her. He also contends that its any event the conduct of the respondent in bringing the properties to sale on the previous occasion without disclosing the existence of a charge on them in respect of future maintenance recoverable by the respondent, clearly estopped her from bringing the properties to sale once again.