PUDOTA CHINNAMMA Vs. SANAPAREDDI SUBBAREDDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal raises an interesting but a simple question of law. The suit was filed by the first respondent, a purchaser of the plaint scheduled property from the second plaintiff (who died during the pendency of the Second Appeal). The appellant herein, the wife of the second plaintiff, obtained an ex parte decree against him in O.S. No. 29 of 1943 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Guntur, for maintenance on 21st January, 1943. When his properties were attached in E.P. No. 654 of 1953, for the realisation of the amount due under the maintenance decree, he raised an objection that the decree obtained against him was void in as much as the District Munsif's Court had no jurisdiction to entertain a suit for maintenance by a 'Christian wife against her husband and that the ex parte decree was fraudulently obtained without service of summons on him. He also filed I.A. No. 3154 of 1943 for setting aside the ex parte decree. His objection to raise the attachment was overruled and his application for setting aside the ex parte decree was dismissed. He thereupon transferred his properties in favour of the first respondent and the suit out of which the second appeal arises was instituted by the purchaser for a declaration that the decree obtained by the appellant against her husband in O.S. No. 29 of 1943 was fraudulent, illegal, void and not executable against the properties purchased by him and for a permanent injunction restraining the appellant from executing her decree.

(2.) The trial Court held that the ex parte decree in O.S. No. 29 of 1943 was not obtained fraudulently, that the District Munsif's Court had jurisdiction to entertain a suit for recovery of maintenance by a Christian wife against her husband, that the agreement of sale set up by the plaintiff was not genuine and that as the plaintiff purchased the properties subsequent to the passing of the decree in O.S. No. 29 of 1943, he was bound by it. The suit was accordingly dismissed.

(3.) On appeal, the Subordinate Judge of Guntur reversed the decree and judgment. While holding that the contract of sale was not true and that the sale could not prevail over the charge created by the maintenance decree, if validly passed, over the plaint scheduled properties, he found that the District Munsif's Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit O.S. No. 29 of 1943, and that consequently the decree was void. The wife has, therefore, preferred the second appeal to this Court.