MT PREM KUER Vs. RAM LAGAN RAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two Letters Patent appeals are from the decision of Reuben J., who dismissed the appeals of the appellants in the following circumstances.

(2.) The appellant Mt. Prem Kuer obtained a decree for past and future maintenance on 9-1-1928, against her mother-in-law, Mt. Rambarat Kuer. By this decree arrears of and future maintenance were declared a charge on the properties which have been styled as lots 1, 2 and 3 in these proceedings. The defendant, Mt. Rambarat Kuer, preferred an appeal against the decision in Title Suit No. 30 of 1926. The appeal was dismissed on 21-12-1928. But during the pendency of the appeal, the landlord of the raiyati holding, Lot No. 1, instituted a suit for recovery of arrears of rent, obtained a decree and in execution thereof purchased Lot No. 1 on 24-5-1928 and obtained delivery of possession on 17-11- 1928 and thereafter transferred Lot No. 1 for consideration to the respondents in one of the appeals whom I shall hereinafter describe as the transferees.

(3.) The appellant executed her maintenance decree on 25-5-1929, against lots 2 and 3, and as the result of an auction sale these two lots were sold to the same landlords who transferred these lots to the respondents transferees, and the decree was satisfied. Future maintenance fell due and the decree holder again put the decree in execution seeking to sell lots 1, 2 and 3 in the year 1941 in Execution Case No. 75. Two objections were preferred by the landlords under Section 47 and by the transferees under Order 21, Rule 58,. Civil P.C., that the three lots could not be sold in execution firstly because the charge created by the decree was a charge for the realisation of the arrears of maintenance up to the date of the decree and not for future maintenance, secondly that Lot No. 1 having been sold in execution of a rent decree of the landlords could not be again sold, in the present execution, and thirdly, that the landlords and the transferees are bona fide purchasers of value without notice of the charge of the maintenance decree- holder, assuming that such a charge has been validly created.