K BHOOM REDDY Vs. SULOCHANA BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these appeals arise out of similar and common orders dated 10-4-1995 in different execution applications filed by the appellants herein in EP No. 19 of 1989 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Bodhan in OS No.170 of 1984. All the appellants are the claim petitioners before the Subordinate Judge, Bodhan in different execution applications in the same EP No.19 of 1989 and the respondents are one and the same, and therefore, all these appeals are disposed of by a common order.

(2.) The 1st respondent Smt. Sulochana Bai is the wife of the 2nd respondent Sri Maruthi Rao. The 1 st respondent filed OP No. 1620 of 1981 against the 2nd respondent on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Nizamabad stating that she married the defendant in 1969 and the defendant deserted her and OP No.49 of 1969 filed by her husband for divorce was dismissed, which was reversed by the District Court, Nizamabad in CMA No.6 of 1974, and against which, she filed an appeal before the High Court and the High Court allowed her appeal confirming the order of the Sub-Court in AAO No.40 of 1977 and again, her husband filed another petition in OP No.532 of 1981 in the Sub-Court reiterating the same false allegations for divorce and she is residing from 1969 onwards with her parents without any maintenance from her husband, and the 2nd respondent is bound to provide maintenance for the 1st respondent, and stated that her husband owns about Ac.39-24 gts., of agricultural lands and a House Bearing No.1-86 at Allapur village, Banswada Taluka, which are shown in Schedule 'A' of the OP, and the value of the property was shown as Rs.5,00,000/- and stated that she is entitled at the rate of Rs.200/- per month towards maintenance for the past 3 years and also entitled for future maintenance at the rate of Rs.500/- per month and as the defendant intends to sell away the properties to deprive her of maintenance, she prayed that a charge shall be created against the said property. She further stated that she was a pauper and she has no property and income except the property shown in the schedule and she cannot pay the Court-fee and prayed that she may be allowed to sue in pauperism for the past maintenance for 3 years from 1-11-1978 to 31-10-1981 at the rate of Rs.200/- per month, which comes to Rs.7,200/-, and future maintenance at the rate of Rs.500/- per month for one year, which comes to Rs.6,000/-, and future maintenance from the date of suit at the rate of Rs.500/- per month and a charge be created against the schedule property of her husband for payment of the maintenance.

(3.) The OP was filed on 10-11-1981 and the suit was numbered as OS No.170 of 1984 on 12-11-1982 allowing the 1st respondent to sue in pauperism. Written statement was filed on 14-3-1983. The suit was decreed on 14-12-1987. The 1st respondent filed EP No.19 of 1989 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Bodhanin the said OS No. 170 of 1984 for the sale of the property, against which, a charge was created. When the 1st respondent has taken out a publication for the sale of the above-said lands in EP No. 19 of 1989 in execution of the maintenance decree against her husband, different claimants, i.e., the appellants herein, filed different claim applications under Order 21, Rule 58 CPC for the relief of raising the attachment effected on 16-3-1990 in EP No. 19 of .1989 in respect of the lands purchased by them, which are situated at Allapur village, Banswada Taluka. In each of the claim applications filed by the appellants, they have stated that they are owners and possessors of the lands purchased by them on different dates ranging from 2-11-1982 to 13-2-1984 for a consideration vide different registered sale deeds and since the date of purchase, they are in possession of the said lands and they came to know about the maintenance decree, when the 1st respondent has taken up a publication for the sale of the said lands in execution of her maintenance decree against the 2nd respondent, and so, the 2nd respondent has no subsisting right or possession over the said lands purchased by them and they are not aware of the suit filed by the 1st respondent and also the decree obtained by her for her maintenance, and hence, they requested to raise the attachment in respect of the lands purchased by them.