RADHA BALLAB DAS Vs. KRISHNA PRIYASHI DASYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three appeals arise out of three execution petitions made of a decree passed by this Court in Appeal from original decree No. 374 of 1908 dated 5 July 1910. The question in controversy depends upon the true interpretation of the decree. Although the learned Subordinate Judge has stated many things in his judgment disallowing the claim of the decree-holder, it is not necessary to go into all these matters. The real question is whether the decree-holder who was the plaintiff in the suit is entitled to execute the decree against the property in the hands of the respondents in these appeals. The plaintiff lived in the family of Radhika Mohan Das, the original owner of the property, as a domesticated son-in-law. After the death of his father-in-law he had disputes with his mother-in-law and it seems that he was obliged to leave the house of his deceased father-in-law. Thereupon, he brought a suit for maintenance against his mother-in-law which was decreed by this Court The relevant terms of the decree with which we are now concerned are these: That it is hereby declared that the plaintiff is entitled out of the estate left by Radhika Mohan Das to maintenance at the rate of Rs. 25 a month.

(2.) It was further decreed that the plaintiff would to entitled to realize the sums due as maintenance in execution of the decree without a fresh suit.

(3.) The defendant in the above suit, the widow of Radhika Mohan, is now dead and the decree-holder seeks to realize the maintenance allowed to him by the decree from the estate of Radhika Mohan now inherited by his wife and his sister-in-law. The question is, whether the decree-holder appellant is entitled to realize the money out of the property in their hands. The Subordinate Judge has held that he is not. The real question in this case is whether the maintenance allowance given under the decree was made a charge on the estate. If it was made a charge on the estate, no doubt the wife and the sister-in-law of the appellant would be bound to pay the maintenance out of the property and the decree-holder need not bring a fresh suit. But if it Was not made a charge on the estate, then the decree was passed against the widow of Radhika Mohan only and so long as she was alive, she was bound to pay the sum of Es. 25 a month out of the estate left by her husband.