Consideration of events subsequent to suit for grant of relief.

This is an appeal against the Judgment of Ganapatia Pillai, in S.A. No. 16 of 1956. It arises out of a suit filed by the Appellant before us-O.S.No. 83 of 1953 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Cuddalore — for partition and separate possession of her half share in the suit properties and for past and future mesne profits. The appellant, who will be referred hereafter as the plaintiff, is the wife of the respondent-first defendant. She filed a suit O.S. No. 137 of 1950 in the same Court for separate maintenance. Though the suit was originally contested by the first defendant, when the suit was taken up for trial, he agreed that the plaintiff would be entitled to claim separate maintenance, but left for the decision of the Court the rate of maintenance and the properties, which are to be charged, for recovery of the maintenance. The learned Subordinate Judge fixed the rate of maintenance at Rs. 150 per month and also directed that the maintenance may be charged on the properties mentioned in a compromise the, terms of which were put before the Court and also on certain properties, which had been alienated by the first defendant. A deed of compromise was filed into Court with a prayer that a decree may be passed in terms thereof. Eventually a decree was passed on 21st December, 1951, the material part of which runs as follows:

“It appearing that the parties have agreed to compromise the matter of the suit and that they have filed into Court a deed of compromise praying that this Court will pass a decree in terms thereof this Court doth in pursuance of the said deed of compromise, order and decree among other terms contained in the compromise set out below as follows:-

(1) That the maintenance payable by the first defendant to the plaintiff is fixed at Rs. 150 per mensem and the same shall be paid from 5th July, 1950, by the first defendant.

(2) That the properties mentioned in the compromise and also properties of the first defendant alienated to the various persons shall be a charge for the payment of the above maintenance.”

The terms of the compromise were embodied in the decree. They inter alias provided that the plaintiff and the first defendant should enjoy in common the lande set out in the schedule attached to the compromise towards the maintenance payable by the first defendant to the plaintiff and towards the maintenance of the first defendant himself and that, if necessary, the plaintiff shall get her half share of the properties after partition, lease out and enjoy the income therefrom, that neither the plaintiff nor the first defendant shall have the right to alienate independently the properties during their lifetime and that if it became necessary, the properties could be alienated by both the plaintiff and the first defendant jointly consenting. It was further provided therein that the half share to which the first defendant was entitled and the half share to which the plaintiff was entitled for her maintenance should be taken after their lifetime by the heir or heirs of the first defendant. The suit out of which this appeal arises was filed for partition and separate possession of a half share of the suit properties, on the following allegations, after a reference to the material terms of the compromise. After the compromise decree, as there were several debts owing by the first defendant, which had to be discharged, both the plaintiff and the first defendant jointly made certain alienations for the purpose and the only items of lands that remained were the properties in the suit. As it was not possible for the plaintiff to live with the first defendant, she was living separately with her parents at Panruti. On 17th February, 1952, the second defendant, who is the elder brother of the first defendant purported to obtain a sale deed of the suit properties from the first defendant for an alleged consideration of Rs. 5,000. The sale is void and not binding on the plaintiff and she was entitled t