AMMUKUTTY AMMA Vs. SIVASANKARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed against the concurrent findings of fact by both the Trial Court as well as the lower Appellate Court. Appellant filed the suit claiming maintenance, on the ground that she was having a limited estate. Appellant contended that she was the widow of one Ramanath Iyer, who was a sharer of the property, and hence, after his death, she is entitled to get maintenance charged over the property, which was allotted to her deceased husband in partition. The Trial Court held that the only Ramanath Iyer had got only a life interest and after his death, the property devolved to other sharers and appellant is not entitled to get maintenance from the defendants. During the pendency of the appeal, appellant died and legal representatives are impleaded as additional appellants.

(2.) In Mulla - Hindu Law, 17th Edition, Page No. 791, it is stated as follows:

(3.) In Muthalammal v. Veeraraghavalu Nayudu and Others, AIR 1953 Mad. 202 , the Division Bench of Madras High Court held that 'the right of a Hindu widow to claim maintenance out of her husband's estate when it has not crystallized into a definite sum is an inchoate right which cannot be transferred or assigned. Her claim to maintenance is personal and, therefore, if she dies pending her suit for maintenance against the estate of her husband in the hand of a coparcener the claim does not survive to her legal representatives.' So, the suit and appeal had abated as the right to sue does not survive to her children. Hence the appeal is only to be dismissed.