Smt. Vijai Laxmi And Another vs Pingal Prasad And 3 Ors.
2013 Latest Caselaw 1807 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 4
 
Case :- CIVIL REVISION No. - 217 of 2013
 
Petitioner :- Smt. Vijai Laxmi And Another
 
Respondent :- Pingal Prasad And 3 Ors.
 
Petitioner Counsel :- Rajesh Kumar Chitragupt
 
Respondent Counsel :- Tripurari Sharan Shukla
 

 

 
Hon'ble Sibghat Ullah Khan,J.

Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar Chitragupt, learned counsel for applicants and Sri T.S. Shukla, learned counsel for respondents, who has appeared through caveat.

This revision is directed against order dated 21.12.2012 passed by A.D.J. (E.C.P.), Siddharth Nagar in O.S. No.407 of 2010, Smt. Vijai Laxmi and another Vs. Pingal Prasad and others. The case has been filed by the applicants, who are widowed, daughter-in-law and grand-son of Pingal Prasad. The suit has been filed for maintenance. In the suit, an application was filed seeking to restrain respondent No.1 from alienating the property. Through the impugned order, the said application has been rejected after referring to Section 27 of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956.

The argument of learned counsel for applicants is that respondent No.1 has executed a gift deed of some of his property in favour of one of his sons in 2009, and one more gift deed in favour of another daughter-in-law in 2010 and a sale deed of third property has also been executed in favour of a third person in 2010. The argument is that if respondent No.1 sells all his property, then even if the suit is decreed it would be futile decree. The apprehension is misconceived. Section 39, Transfer of Property Act provides as under:

"39. Transfer where third person is entitled to maintenance.-Where a third person has a right to receive maintenance, or a provision for advancement or marriage, from the profits of immoveable property, and such property is transferred, the right may be enforced against the transferee, if he has notice thereof or if the transfer is gratuitous; but not against a transferee for consideration and without notice of the right, nor against such property in his hands."

Accordingly, it is clear that right of maintenance would be enforceable against transferees also to the extent of the property, which they have got through transfer from respondent No.1. Accordingly, I am not inclined to interfere in the impugned order. However, it is directed that the suit shall be decided very expeditiously preferably within one year from the date of production of a certified copy of this order provided that it is filed within three weeks from today and applicants do not seek more than one adjournment.

With the above observations, revision is disposed of.

Order Date :- 08.05.2013

NLY