1. The lower Appellate Court has found that items Nos. 6 to 11 of plaint A schedule were the stridhanam properties of plaintiff's mother-in-law and did not belong to her father-in-law's estate. On this finding no charge should have been given on those items for any part of the maintenance allowed. The learned District Judge apparently thinks that because the mother-in-law was made a party to the second appeal as the legal representative of her deceased husband, and in that suit a charge was declared for Rs. 72 a year on properties including those properties, the same is binding on her and her estate. We are unable to concur with this view. She was only added as a legal representative in the previous litigation and it was not open to her as such to raise any defences personal to herself. It was, therefore, open to her and is now open to her representative, the 2nd defendant, to plead that the charge was not a proper charge on their properties and, as on the finding of the lower Appellate Court the charge is not a proper one, effect can and should be given to it by disallowing any charge on those lands. There is no question raised about the amount of maintenance allowed. The decree of the lower Appellate Court must, therefore, be reversed and that of the first Court restored. The first defendant will pay 2nd defendant's costs in this and the lower appellate Court and the plaintiff will bear his own costs in both these Courts.