VEGULLA SATYANARAYANA MURTHY Vs. ALLURI ANNAPURNAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) R-1 herein obtained decree for maintenance with charge and separate residence against her husband i.e., R-2 herein, in O.S.No.582 of 1973 1st Additional D.M.C., Tanuku. As per the said decree, the property, which is the subject-matter of these two appeals, was allotted to R-1 towards residence. But, even on 29-10-72, these two appellants purchased the protions of the said property under two separate registered sale deeds from R-2. E.P.No.235 of 1979 was filed under O.21, R.35 CPC for possession of the property given to R-l for residence. The possession of the same was delivered to R-1 by breaking open the locks with the permission of the Court. Then, these appellants filed E.A.Nos.977 and 976 of 1979 respectively for possession of the same. Those petitions were allowed by the Executing Court. The orders therein were set aside by the 1st Appellate Court. The judgment of the 1st Appellate Court and the decrees therein, were challenged in these second appeals.

(2.) R-l pleaded that she had given notice about the claim for maintenance to P.W.I, the father of the appellants informing him that if he purchases the property from her husband, he had to do so at his risk P.W.1 received it as per Ex.B-1 acknowledgment dt.16-10-1972. Hence, it is a case where the appellants purchased the property having notice of the claim of R-1 for maintenance as against her husband and as such the purchases by the appellants are subject to the right of R-1 under Section 39 of the T.P. Act.

(3.) The contentions for the appellants are two-fold: (1) The signature on Ex. B-1 is not that of P.W.1. Even if the said signature can be held as that of P.W.1, still the notice to their further P.W.1 cannot be attributed to the appellants, who are the purchasers from R-2. R-2 sold the premises to the appellants in discharge of the mortgage debts. The claim for maintenance does not have precedence over the secured debt. (2) As the appellants herein were no t parties to O.S.No.582 of 1973, they are not bound by the decree therein and as such, R-1 cannot take possession of the property from these appellants in execution of the decree in O.S. No.582 of 1973. These are the two points for consideration in these appeals.