A Hindu widow has the right to claim enhanced maintenance against joint family properties, and the provisions of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, do not restrict this right.

1. The interesting question that arises for decision in this Second Appeal is whether a Hindu widow who had obtained a decree for maintenance charged on certain properties of the joint family is entitled to claim enhanced maintenance out of these properties latter, on the plea that the circumstances have altered justifying enhancement of maintenance when the properties have passed into the hands of an alienee purchasing for consideration with notice of the decree obtained by the widow for maintenance. The trial court found that the widow, who is the plaintiff, was entitled to sue for enhancement of maintenance. But the appellate court has reversed this and has dismissed the suit. This appeal is by the widow who has been so non-suited by the appellate decision.

2. One Kaveri Amma, who was the plaintiff, married one Vishnu Bhatta who died leaving the plaintiff a widow at a very early age. The joint family of Vishnu Bhatta was possessed of extensive properties. Kaveri Amma brought a suit for maintenance in the District Munsiff's Court of Puttur. The matter was compromised and decree was passed in terms of the compromise on 12-3-1923. Ext. B. 4 is the copy of that decree. It is seen from the decree that a charge is created on certain items of propeties which are the suit properties here. Some time after Ext. B-4 compromise decree, plaint schedule items 1 to 5 were sold by the joint family under Ext. A-2 on 24 41926 to a stranger and the vendee subsequently sold it to another under Ext. A-3 dated 141933. Defendants claim under the said sale deed. Plaintiff now sues for enhanded maintenance. What was awarded by Ext. B-4 decree was maintenance at the rate of Rs. 66 per annum. What is now claimed in the plaint by way of enhanced maintenance is 5 maunds of arecanuts and 15 muras of rice per annum. The plaintiff has made certain averments to show that in the changed circumstances she is entitled to the enhancement claimed. The first defendant is the main contesting defendant. Defendants 2, 3 and 4, by separate written statements, and defendants 5 and 6 by a joint written statement, have supported the case of the first defendant. Their case is that the plaintiff is entitled to a charge only to the extent of the amount awarded under the earlier maintenance decree Ext. B-4, as against the properties obtained by them. The sale deed of 1926 is said to be one executed for legal necessity of the family making due provision for meeting the obligations of the family under Ext. B-4 decree. The right to enhancement claimed is also disputed. On these pleadings the question that had to be decided was whether the first defendant who claims under the sale deed from the joint family alleged to have been taken for necessity binding on the tarwad was entitled to defeat the claim of the plaintiff to enhanced maintenance as against the properties of the family which had gone out of the tarwad. It is on this question that different views have been taken by the courts below.

3. The learned counsel for the plaintiff relies on S.25 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) to justify her claim for enhancement of maintenance. The said Section runs as follows:

"25. The amount of maintenance, whether fixed by a decree of court or by agreement. either before or after the commencement of this Act, may be altered subsequently if there is a material change in the circumstances justifying such alteration. "

Section 28 is also relied on, as that provides for the enforcement of right to receive maintenance against the properties transferred by the family. That section runs as follows: .

"28. Where a dependant has a right to receive maintenance out of an estate, "and such estate or any part thereof is transferred, the right to receive maintenance may be enforced against the transferee if the transferee has notice of the right, or if the transfer is gratuitous; but not against the transferee for consideration and without