SAH RADHA KRISHNA Vs. MTBECHNI DEBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant objected in the Court of the Subordinate Judge against the execution of a decree against his property. The objection was dismissed; hence he presents this appeal. The facts leading up to this position are that the respondent. Bechni Debi, a Hindu widow, and another lady had brought a pauper suit against the male members of a Hindu joint family and obtained a decree on 27th September 1932, for maintenance at Rs. 100 per month to each of the plaintiffs together with arrears of Rs. 2,090. The decree was made effective as a charge on all the properties of the members of the joint family, including; Maksudpur tauzi No. 7499.

(2.) This property was put up for sale in execution of a money decree obtained by the present appellant on 19 August 1930 for Rs. 35,000. He purchased the property on 19 December 1932, for Rs. 47,000 and the sale was con-firmed on 24 August 1933. In the present execution the respondent seeks to realise the money due to her under the maintenance decree, by enforcing it as a charge decree against this property, Maksudpur. The appellant resisted that execution on several grounds, but mainly on the ground that the respondent, to enforce her right of maintenance against him, was bound to bring a separate suit.

(3.) In that objection petition no mention was made of the point which the appellant seeks to raise before us, but before its disposal he applied to the Subordinate Judge to permit amendment of the objection petition by adding two more grounds, viz., (a) that the decree of the opposite party stands fully satisfied and she has got a huge amount, at least Rs. 20,000 after satisfying the decree and defraying the legitimate expenses from the income of the property purchased by him in her execution case No. 101 of 1933, Subordinate Judge II, Patna, and as such the decree is unexecutable, and (b) that the decree is collusive and unexecutable against your petitioner (the appellant) and is not binding upon him.