SINGAMANENI RAMAPPA Vs. AMILINENI PEDDAKKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal is directed against the decree and judgment of the learned District Judge, Anantapur, in A.S. No, 205 of 1962. The short facts are that one Peddakka obtained a decree for maintenance against her husband, Venkataramappa, and other reliefs, with a charge on the properties belonging to the husband. During the pendency of the suit for maintenance, the husband executed three registered sale-deeds, Exhibit A-1 dated 25th June, 1959 and Exhibit A-2 dated 26 th September, 1959 in favour of one S. Ramappa and Exhibit A-9 dated 16th June, 1959 in favour of one M. Venkataramappa, the 1st respondent in A.S. No. 203 of 1962, with which appeal We are not concerned. The maintenance suit eventually resulted in a decree. When the decree Was put in execution by the wife, S. Ramappa filed E.A.No.541 of 1960 and Venkataramappa filed E.A. No. 574 of 1960, claiming that the properties are not liable to be attached and proceeded against. It was contended on behalf of the wife that these alienations Were affected by the doctrine of lis pendens.

(2.) The learned District Munsif upheld the claim of the alienees. The learned District Judge of Anantapur, however, reversed that decision, and, dismissing the two petitions, ordered execution to proceed. It is against this judgment that the claimant, Ramappa, has preferred this second appeal. Sri Narasinga Rao, the learned Counsel for the appellant, has raised the following contortions :- (1) the maintenance decree is collusive ; and (2) the alienations are not hit by section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. The finding that the decree for maintenance obtained by the wife against the husband is not collusive Was arrived at by the learned District Judge on a consideration of the evidence adduced. It is a finding of fact with which I cannot interfere in second appeal, as this is not a case where there is no evidence at all to support that finding, or that there is any error of law committed by the learned Judge.

(3.) As regards the second contention, Sri Narasinga Rao argued that a suit for maintenance by a wife claiming charge on his immovable property is not one asking for any right in respect of such property and relied upon the decision of Devadoss, J. in Rattamma v. Seshachalam Sarma, (1987) 58 M.LJ 520; A.I.R. 1927 Mad. 502. for the proposition that when a wife brings a suit against the husband for maintenance and asks, for a charge on the property belonging to him, she does not ask for any right directly and specifically in respect of the property, and that section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act has no application to such a case.