BODDU VENKATA RAO Vs. MANTHA ANNAPURNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 2nd defendant is the appellant in this second appeal as also in the lower appellate court who is an alienee of some of the charged property in favour of the plaintiff for payment of maintenance of a sum of Rs. 30/- per year. The plaintiff filed the suit claiming enhancement of maintenance to a sum of Rs. 300/- per year. The learned District Munsif who tried the suit enhanced the maintenance from Rs. 30/- to Rs. 175 per year on the ground of changed circumstances and this was confirmed by the learned Subordinate Judge on appeal. The short question of law that arises in this second appeal is that where property was subsequently alienated after it was charged with the payment of the maintenance of a widow of a particular amount and where the widow subsequently claims enhancement of the amount of maintenance whether a further charge can be created on the same property for the enhanced maintenance also. When the second appeal came up for hearing in the first instance before our learned brother Rarnachandra Rao, J., he directed the case to be posted before a bench on the ground that the question appears to be not free from difficulty and it is desirable that the, question should be decided authoritatively by a Bench. That is how this second appeal is before us.

(2.) For an appreciation of the question involved the facts which have given rise to the case may be stated. The plaintiff is the widow of one late Mantha Ganesam. She was his second wife. Survanarayana, the father of the 1st defendant was his son by his first wife. Ganesam had a brother, Suhbarayudu who survived him. During the minority of Suryanarayana, be and Subbarayudu became dividedi At that time a registered maintenance deed, Ex. A.1 dt 26-7-1935 was executed by Subbarayudu as guardian of Suryanarayana in favour of the plaintiff It was provided in Ex; A. 1 that the plaintiff should he paid a sum of Rs. 30- towards her maintenance every year and the plaint schedule property which is of "an extent of Ac. 1-50 cents was made a first charge for the maintenance stipulated in the deed. It was also recited in Ex. A. 1 that the property charged fell to the share of "Suryanarayana in the partition between him and Subba Rayudu. It appears from the boundaries given in Ex. A 1 for the property charged that Survanarayana got some more property in the partition apart from the property charged. Itappears that Subbarayudu conveyed his property also to Suryanarayana. Under Ex. B-2 dt.25-8-55 Suryanarayana gifted some property in favour of his wife, Subsequently out of the gifted property the wife of Suryanaravana sold Ac. 1-10 cents of lend to the 2nd defendant under Ex. B.1 dt. 29-10-1963. Accerding to the 2nd defendant Ac; 0-80 cents of land out of this Ac. 1-6 cents is part of Ac. 1-50 cents for which charge was created under Ex.A. 1 in favour of the plaintiff, It appears tdat defendants 3 and 4 became alienees for the remaining Ac. 0-70 cents of land of the charged property. "Therefore as between defendants 2 to 4 they became subsequent alienees of the charged property.

(3.) The yearly maintenance of Rs.30/-to the plaintiff was fixed in the year 1935 and the present suit for enhancement was filed in the year 1966. During this period the prices have risen very high and consequently the cost of living has increased enormously as also the income on the lands. The trial court found that the Ac, 1-50 cents of land that was given as a first charge for the plaintiff's right of maintenance roughly represents the share of the plaintiff's husband and the annual net income on that property will not in any case be less than Rs.375/- per yaer. On these findings the yearly maintenance was enhanced from Rs.30/- to Rs. 175/- and created a first charge over the same property for the enhanced maintenance also, As already stated it is only the 2nd defendant who has appealed questioning the creation of the charge for the enhanced maintenance also over the property purchased by him.