POKURU RANGAIAH Vs. POKUR CHINNAIAH AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal raises an interesting question of law as to whether a charge created by a decree for maintenance obtained by the wife of the manager of a joint Hindu family over the joint family property is binding on the stepson of the manager who was not a party to the suit for maintenance.

(2.) The facts are few and they are not in dispute. This appeal is by the plaintiff who sued for partition and possession of the suit property free of charge against the 1st defendant, his father, and the 2nd defendant, his step-mother. The 1st defendant became ex parte. The 2nd defendant contested the suit contending inter alia that the charge created by her maintenance decree in O. Section 196/55, Munsif Court, over the suit property will be binding on the plaintiff and she would be entitled to have a charge on the portion of the property that would be allotted to the share of the plaintiff. The trial Court dismissed the suit. The appellate Court held that the plaintiff was entitled to partition and possession of his half share in the plaint schedule property subject to the charge already created by the maintenance decree. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court, the plaintiff has filed the present second appeal.

(3.) Mr. Seetharamaiah for the appellant strenuously contends that the 2nd defendant who is the step mother of the plaintiff cannot claim maintenance against the plaintiff, her step-son, as there is no personal liability for him to maintain her, unless a share of her husband is allotted to him, and cited (1904) ILR 27 Mad 45, (1889) ILR 16 Cal 758 (PC), A.I.R. 1939 Madras 781; A.I.R. 1944 Bombay 235 (2), (1963) 2 Andh WR 400: A.I.R. 1964 Andhra Pradesh 105, and some passages from Mayne's and Trevelyan's Hindu Law in support of his plea that there can be no valid charge in respect of plaintiff's share. Mr. Raghava Rao, for the contesting respondent, contended contra.