( 1 ) THE appellants, who are the Respondents 3 and 4 in the lower appellate Court having been impleaded therein, seek to assail the judgment and decree in A. S. No. 7 of 1986 dated 24-12-1991 on the file of the District Judge at Nalgonda, in the appeal filed at the instance of the defendant (who is, surprisingly, not made a party in this appeal), as against the judgment and decree in O. S. No. 8 of 1984 dated 6-2-1986 on the file of the subordinate Judge at Bhongir, Nalgonda district.

( 2 ) HEARD Sri T. S. Anand, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, and sri N. Venkat Rayudu, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent.

( 3 ) INITIALLY, the suit has been filed by the respondent herein as against her husband-defendant along with their daughter, as Plaintiff No. 2, claiming for maintenance at Rs. 350. 00 per month and the arrears at Rs. 12,600. 00 and sought for creation of charge over the properties mentioned in plaint-A Schedule. The case of both the plaintiffs was that the defendant having married the Plaintiff No. l, lead a happy marital life for quite some time and out of the said wedlock, a son and minor daughter-the Plaintiff No. 2 having been born. The husband-defendant beame hostile at later stage and got addicted to liquor and alcohol, which lead to domestic quarrels between them, and, ultimately sending away the Plaintiff No. l to her parents. Subsequently, the husband-defendant married a lady by name Prameela second time, and later on he again married another lady by name Padma and thus he is neglecting to maintain both the plaintiffs. Hence, the suit.

( 4 ) CONTESTING the suit claim the case of the husband-defendant was that, no doubt he has married the Plaintiff No. l and two children were born, but it is only the plaintiff No. l herself left the company without any justification, and in spite of best efforts, she could not come back. Further, the allegation that he married again and again was denied. It was further stated that the plaintiffs are not entitled for any charge. It was further pointed out that he has already filed an application under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act in o. P. No. 70 of 1979, after service of notice therein, the present suit is filed only as counterblast, and, therefore she is not entitled for any relief as claimed.

( 5 ) ON these and other allegations the trial Court on framing of the issues and conducting a trial, wherein the plaintiffs examined P. Ws. l to 8 and marked Exs. Al to A7 and on behalf of the defendant d. Ws. l to 3 having been examined and marking Exs. Bl to B4, decreed the suit to the extent of Plaintiff No. l, holding that she is entitled to maintenance, and determined the same at the rate of Rs. 200. 00 per month, apart from a sum of Rs. 7,200. 00 towards the arrears of maintenance and created a charge over the items shown in Plaint-A schedule properties. However, as regards the Plaintiff no. 2, the suit was dismissed, since she subsequently got married.

( 6 ) AS against the said judgment and decree the husband-defendant filed the appeal, wherein the mother and other two sisters of the husband got impleaded as Respondents 2 to 4, inter alia, on the ground that certain items of properties have already been sold and gifted away to them long back and therefore the question of creating any charge over such properties does not arise. On the consideration of evidence and material on record, the lower appellate Court, while partly allowing the appeal, confirmed the findings that the respondent No. l-the wife is entitled for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 200. 00 per month, however, in regard to the properties claimed by the mother and two sisters of the husband, it was held that in view of Section 39 of the Transfer of Property act, the plaintiff is not entitled to charge over the Items 8 to 11 of Plaint-A schedule properties, but however, the charge as laid against Items 1 to 7 and 12 to 16 of Plaint-A schedule properties was confirmed