AMBIKA RAI Vs. TETARA KUER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the defendants is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Second Court, Chapra, affirming those of the first Munsif there.

(2.) The plaintiff, who is the widow of one Jan-gi Rai, instituted a suit against Jagarnath Rai, who had succeeded to the estate of Jangi Rai, for maintenance in the year 1923 and obtained a decree on award, according to which she was to get a sum of Rs. 407- annually as maintenance which was made a charge on the family property of Jagarnath Rai. and over and above that she was to enjoy the usufruct of two mango trees, one 'kathal' tree and one bamboo clump. It appears that the two mango trees and the bamboo clump were cut sometime in the year 1947. Thereafter in 1948, she filed a suit, out of which the present appeal arises, for increasing the amount of her maintenance, and she claimed to get a sum of Rs. 27/- per month as her maintenance. This claim was made against the appellant on the ground that they had inherited the property of Jagarnath Rai. The suit was contested by them, inter alia, on the ground (1) that they were not the heirs of Jagarnath Rai and that they were in possession of his property by reason of purchase for value from his heirs, and (2) that the plaintiff was not entitled to have the amount of maintenance increased, nor were they liable for payment of any increased amount.

(3.) Both the Courts below negatived the contention of the plaintiff that the appellants were the heirs of Jagarnath and accepted their case that they had purchased his property with notice of the charge of maintenance made by the decree of the Court in the year 1923. They also held that in view of the circumstances of the case, she was entitled to have the amount of her maintenance increased, and they concurrently found that a sum of Rs. 12/- per month would be the proper amount of maintenance for her. They further held that the appellants were liable to pay the above amount of maintenance inasmuch as they were purchasers of Jagarnath's property with notice of the plaintiff's claim of maintenance. On these findings, the suit of the plaintiff was decreed and the defendants have come up to this Court in second appeal.