1. Muruga Pillai the 3rd defendant and the plaintiff's husband were members of one family--the plaintiff's husband being divided from the others. When the plaintiff's husband died, land which formed his separate property was in possession and enjoyment of Muruga Pillai and the 3rd defendant; his widow left it with them in consideration of their paying her periodically an allowance for maintenance. Subsequently Muruga Pillai and Saminadha Pillai divided all their property including that which had formerly belonged to the plaintiff's husband and Muruga Pillai undertook to satisfy the plaintiff's claim for maintenance while Saminadha Pillai the 3rd defendant was to pay another widow. The plaintiff consented to this arrangement. Muruga Pillai subsequently transferred his property to one Rajagopala Pillai a relative who is found by the Court of the first instance to have had notice of the plaintiff's claim for maintenance. No case of a collusive or fraudulent transfer was Set up in the plaint and Section 3) of the Transfer of Property Act will not, therefore, apply to the suit which, so far as we are concerned with it, is by the plaintiff against the heirs of Rajagopal Pillai the transferor. The appellant's case is rested before us in Section 40 of the Transfer of Property Act and it is contended that the obligation to pay the plaintiff's maintenance is annexed to the ownership of the land which fell to Muruga Pillai on the partition. It is not found that, even if by the contract between the plaintiff on the one hand and Muruga Pillai and Saminadha Pillai on the other, the obligation to pay the maintenance was annexed to the ownership of the land transferred by the plaintiff, still less is there any apparent connection between the ownership of the land divided between the co-parceners and the obligations which were also divided between them. We do not think that the case can be brought within the provisions of Section 40 and that being so, we must dismiss the appeal with costs.