JUDGMENT

1. The facts of the case out of which this appeal arises are as follows: The plaintiff who is a Hindu widow brought the suit against her two sisters-in-law for maintenance. She alleged that her husband Barada Kanta died during the lifetime of his father Bhajan Bala Kapali who was her father-in-law. Then Bhajan died and defendants Nos. 1 and 2 who are the daughters of Bhajan neglected to maintain her and hence this suit. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 contended that the plaintiff was not entitled to any maintenance and that the plaint lands had been sold to defendant No. 3 with the exception of the dwelling house. On this defendant No. 3 was made a party and ha stated that he had purchased the lands bona fide for Rs. 500 and that, therefore, he could not be made liable for the maintenance.

2. The trial Court found that the defendant No. 3 was a bona fide purchaser of the property without any notice of the interests of the plaintiff and hence it held that it could not declare that the plaintiff's maintenance was a charge on the properties in suit and it was ordered that the plaintiff was entitled to get maintenance Rs. 4 a month from the defendants Nos. 1 and 2; the plaintiff's praye