(1.) In this appeal the respondent is unrepresented before us. We have given our best consideration to this case, especially in view of the fact that we have received no help from the respondent.
(2.) The facts giving rise to the suit are that one Keshab Chandra Roy was the owner of a share in Touzi No. 33, Pabna Collectorate, and he died leaving the plaintiff as his widow, and two sons, one by the plaintiff and the other by a predeceased wife, who is defendant 1, Dinesh Chandra Roy. While the property left by Keshab was in possession of his two sons, the plaintiff's son died leaving her as his heir, with the result that the plaintiff and Dinesh became entitled each to an eight anna share of the property and were in such possession. In 1300 B.S. the plaintiff executed a deed of relinquishment in favour of Dinesh, by which she gave up her possession of the property left by Keshab to Dinesh on the ground that she was old and infirm and was unable to manage it. In that document there was no reservation of any right by the plaintiff. It was intended to accelerate the succession of the reversioner Dinesh. In 1301 B.S. Dinesh executed a document termed " ekrarnama for maintenance " by which after reciting the relinquishment of the plaintiff's share in the property under the deed of 1300 B. S., Dinesh promised to pay to the plaintiff a mashohara or allowance of Rs. 10 a month for her life. Some time after 1314 B.S. Dinesh transferred a portion of the property, Touzi No. 33, left by the plaintiff's husband, to the appellant, defendant 6. The present suit was instituted by the plaintiff in 1925 for recovery of the amount fixed by the ekrarnama of 1301 B.S. from Dinesh as well as from the appellant. Both the Courts below have decreed the plaintiff's suit. Defendant 6, the purchaser, appeals and two points have been urged on her behalf. The first is that the transaction as evidenced by the documents of 1300and 1301 B.S. did not create a charge on the property in the hands of the appellant, which is not, therefore, liable for the plaintiff's claim; and the second is that even if the plaintiff's claim constitutes a charge, the appellant being a purchaser for value without notice, took the property free of such claim.
(3.) As regards the first point, the deed of relinquishment does not mention any consideration. The ekrarnama of 1301, after mentioning that the plaintiff had by the deed of 1300 B.S. relinquished her interest in Touzi No. 33, proceeds to say: Now besides the abovementioned property, you have also relinquished in my favour other immovable properties which you owned and possessed. For this I do hereby promise by this deed of agreement to pay you Rs. 10 per month as desired by you in lieu of all those properties for your maintenance....If I do not pay the, maintenance money amicably you will be entitled to realize the same-by a regular suit by putting in auction all those properties and, in case the entire amount in arrear is not realized therefrom, by the sale of my other properties moveable and immovable.