IDYALA GOVINDA BHATTA Vs. PARVATHI AMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question raised in this second appeal is whether a Hindu widow whose claim for maintenance had already been agreed upon and made a charge on the joint family properties under a written contract would not be entitled to get enhanced maintenance over the same properties even if those properties were sold away later from the joint family to third parties for a debt valid and binding on the joint family's estate with notice of such charge to the alienees.

(2.) This question was raised in the Trial Court in a suit instituted by the respondent plaintiff against the appellant who is the defendant to the suit. Nne Narayana Bhatta is the brother of the deceased husband of the respondent. Narayana Bhatta executed a karar on 10-5-1919 agreeing to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 80/- a year to the respondent charging it on the plaint properties which belonged to the joint family of Narayana Bhatta and his deceased brother. Later the said properties had been sold for family necessity to the appellant's family and thereafter under a partition the appellant became solely entitled to the plaint properties. Subsequent to the original agreement there was a mediation by which the maintenance rate due to the respondent was enhanced to Rs. 125/- a year. Though the appellant did not concede i to the enhancement, the suit was laid by the respondent claiming maintenance at a higher rate. Both the courts below found that the respondent would be entitled to get Rs. 500/- a year towards her maintenance out of the plaint schedule properties. Accordingly, both the Trial Court as well as the lower appellate court passed a decree for Rs. 500/- a year towards the respondent's maintenance as a charge over the plaint schedule properties. It is against this decree and judgment that the second appeal is preferred.

(3.) The question posed before this Court is whether the respondent would be entitled to claim enhanced rate of maintenance after the property had been sold away from the joint family for a debt which was valid and binding on the family estate. The learned counsel of the appellant however did not contend that the respondent is not entitled to any maintenance. According to the learned counsel the amount of Rs. 80/- a year as originally fixed in the karar dated 10-5-1919 would be valid and binding on the appellant, but he disputed only the claim for enhanced maintenance.