Ramaswami, J.- This second appeal has been preferred against the decree and judgment of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge at Ellore in A.S. No. 184 of 1946 in O.S. No. 382 of 1944.

2. The facts are: The plaintiff is Bandi Narayanamma; her deceased husband Venkatarayudu and defendants 2 and 4 were the undivided sons of the first defendant Bandi Muneyya. The third defendant is a son of the second defendant. There is no dispute that all these persons constituted members of a coparcenary. This Bandi Narayanamma’s husband, Venkatarayudu, died about 1914. This widow in 1944 came with a case that she was entitled to separate maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1,000 per annum, for arrears of maintenance at that rate and for provisions being made for residence, utensils etc. The defendants set up the plea that the maintenance of this widow had already been settled by an arrangement with the father of the plaintiff at Rs. 100 per annum and it was being paid for several years at that rate. Therefore, the controversy between the widowed daughterin-law and the father-in-law and brothers-in-law was that the widow claimed Rs. 1,000 per annum on foot of the income of the family on the date of su

Click Here to Read the rest of this document