PATURI VEERANNA Vs. PATHURI SEETHAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants are the appellants before me. The second appeal arises out of a suit instituted by Pathuri Seethamma, the respondent-plaintiff, who is the widow of Butchi Ramanna. Butchi Ramanna died in 1933 having divided from his brothers, Veeranna and Venkanna. On the death of Butchi Ramanna, his properties devolved on Seethamma, the widow. She, however, executed a surrender deed after four years of her husbands death in favour of Venkanna and Veeranna who were the nearest reversioners to the estate. They, in turn, executed a maintenance deed promising to pay Rs. 25 per year besides promising to supply some chillies and redgram. The first defendant is the wife of Venkanna and the second defendant is the daughter. The third defendant is the brother-in-law of Veeranna. The fourth defendant is his son. The plaintiff contended that the maintenance amount is too meager in view of the rise in prices and, therefore, pleaded that the amount be enhanced. She, therefore, wanted Rs. 300 per year apart from the supply of chillies and redgram fixed in the maintenance deed.

(2.) IN the written statement, it was contended that the plaintiff is not entitled to enhancement of maintenance. An objection was raised that, under the law, she cannot claim any enhancement. It was also pleaded that there is a recital in the maintenance deed to the effect that no claim for enhancement or reduction could be entertained. The defendants also denied that there are circumstances which warrant increase in the maintenance amount.

(3.) Upon these pleadings, the trial Court framed appropriate issues. The plaintiff marked one document while the defendants marked one other document. No oral evidence was adduced on either side.