UPPALAPATI VENKATARATNAM Vs. UPPALAPATI APPARAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner filed a suit O.S. No. 278 of 1944 in the Court of the District Munsiff, Kovvur. She asked (a) for arrears of maintenance and (b) for enhancement of the previous rate which had been fixed by a registered document of 1937. The defendant admitting that the arrears of maintenance were due at the old rate alleged that he had made a tender of the amount, namely, Rs. 300; with regard to enhancement, however, he said that the document fixed the rate once for all and that no further enhancement was possible or lawful. On the date of the trial the plaintiff was absent and her pleader filed an application for an adjournment but this was dismissed. He then reported no "instructions".

(2.) THE District Munsiff thereupon passed a decree for Rs. 300, being the amount of the arrears of maintenance at the old rate, together with costs, and then having examined the registered document itself and heard the arguments of the defendant and Counsel he held that the plaintiff had no just claim to enhancement and dismissed that part of her suit. In his judgment the learned District Munsiff says:

(3.) FROM this decision she appealed to the Subordinate Judge, Ellore, who in a reasoned judgment came to the conclusion that the only remedy open to the plaintiff in the circumstances indicated above was to prefer an appeal. He also held that the District Munsiff had decided the case under Rule 3 of Order 17, Civil Procedure Code, and went on to say that Order 9, Rule 9, did not apply.