VENKATRAMA AIYAR Vs. AVRANGIYAN CHETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 6-10-88, a suit (O.S. No. 1 of 1889) was filed by a Hindu widow for maintenance. As to one of the defendants (14th) impleaded in that suit, she alleged that he held a mortgage over a portion of the property sought to be charged with the maintenance and that the said mortgage was obtained fraudulently and without consideration, was not for family benefit and could not affect her right to charge the maintenance on the mortgaged property. The 14th defendant pleaded that he held two hypothecation bonds from the 1 defendant and that he had sued on the latter in O.S. No. 16 of 1887, and obtained a decree (on 28-9-87).

(2.) The District Judge found that the plaintiff had no cause of action against the 14th defendant. He gave a decree for maintenance which was made a charge against the interests of defendants 1 and 2 in the plaint properties subject to the lien claimed by the 14th defendant among others. (22-8-90).

(3.) Meanwhile in execution of O.S. No. 16 of 1887 the mortgaged property was sold on 28- 11-1889 and the decree-holder purchased it and obtained delivery on 25-12-1889. The respondents before us are his assignees.