POONGAVANAM Vs. PANDURANGAN ALIAS PANDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, Virudhachalam, wherein the judgment of the trial court in a suit for maintenance and charge over the properties in respect of the maintenance was modified.

(2.) The following short facts are noticed in the pleadings of the parties: The first plaintiff is the legally wedded wife of the first defendant. While the second plaintiff and one Rajendran are their children. The marriage took place 26 years prior to the litigation. The plaintiff was meted out cruel treatment and s as driven away. While so, the first defendant was making an attempt to dispose of the properties. He has executed a sale deed on 18.4.1986 in favour of the second defendant and also a deed of mortgage in favour of the third defendant, but without any co nsideration whatsoever and they were created only to defeat the maintenance right of the plaintiff, and hence, she has filed the suit for maintenance for a sum of Rs.200/- per month for herself and Rs.100/- per month for the second plaintiff and other re liefs.

(3.) Though the first defendant filed written statement, he remained ex parte at the time of trial. The second and third defendants filed written statement stating that the sale in favour of the second defendant and the mortgage deed in favour of the d defendant had come into existence in the ordinary course of events and that they have paid consideration; that the second defendant was the bona fide purchaser and the third defendant's transaction was a bona fide one, and hence, the reliefs were to be rejected.