Skip to content


Appala Subbaramiah Vs. Kotha Gurumma and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1942Mad385; (1942)1MLJ290
AppellantAppala Subbaramiah
RespondentKotha Gurumma and ors.
Excerpt:
- - in fact he could not contest the suit, for the amount due under the security bond was clearly payable and by virtue of the assignment it was payable to the plaintiff. the third defendant's application to scale down the decree debt has been dismissed solely on the ground that the liability is one in respect of maintenance falling under section 4 (g) of act iv of 1938. it seems to us that this decision is clearly wrong......is also the appellant) was the third defendant in a suit brought by the plaintiff to enforce her right to maintenance by the realisation of the amount due under a security bond, executed by the third defendant to the family of the plaintiff's husband and assigned by that family to the plaintiff in lieu of maintenance. the third defendant did not contest the suit; in fact he could not contest the suit, for the amount due under the security bond was clearly payable and by virtue of the assignment it was payable to the plaintiff. the third defendant's application to scale down the decree debt has been dismissed solely on the ground that the liability is one in respect of maintenance falling under section 4 (g) of act iv of 1938. it seems to us that this decision is clearly wrong.2. no.....
Judgment:

Wadsworth, J.

1. The petitioner in the revision petition (who is also the appellant) was the third defendant in a suit brought by the plaintiff to enforce her right to maintenance by the realisation of the amount due under a security bond, executed by the third defendant to the family of the plaintiff's husband and assigned by that family to the plaintiff in lieu of maintenance. The third defendant did not contest the suit; in fact he could not contest the suit, for the amount due under the security bond was clearly payable and by virtue of the assignment it was payable to the plaintiff. The third defendant's application to scale down the decree debt has been dismissed solely on the ground that the liability is one in respect of maintenance falling under Section 4 (g) of Act IV of 1938. It seems to us that this decision is clearly wrong.

2. No doubt the plaintiff's claim was a claim based on her right to maintenance; but her right to recover from the third defendant was not based, on her right to maintenance. It was based purely on the assignment to her of the third defendant's security bond executed in favour of the plaintiff's brothers-in-law. The liability of the third defendant had nothing to do with maintenance. It was a liability in respect of previous transactions between him and the members of the family of the plaintiff's husband. The mere fact that this asset of the family was assigned to the plaintiff in lieu of maintenance will not in our opinion make the liability of the debtor a liability in respect of maintenance protected by Section 4 (g) of the Act. We therefore allow the civil revision petition with costs and remand the application to the trial Court for disposal on the merits.

3. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal does not lie and is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //