AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Venkatasubba Rao, J.—There is clearly no point in this second appeal. It is urged for the appellant that her maintenance was by the terms of
the Will made a charge upon the property and that therefore Ex. I which is not registered is not valid as a receipt''. This contention is unfounded
because there is no charge created by the will. The clause relating to payment of maintenance is, in the usual form, directing the testator''s son to
pay the plaintiff maintenance at a certain rate. As is pointed out in Narayanrao Ramchandra Pani v. Ramabai 3 Bom. 415 this does not create a
specific charge on the inheritance but merely imposes an obligation upon the son to make a payment for the maintenance of the person specified.
Granting for a moment that a charge was created, even then Ex. I does not require registeration : see my judgment in Gopalaswami Aiyar v.
Kalyana Rangappa AIR 1925 Mad. 348. There are no words in the receipt purporting to extinguish the charge; and it does not, therefore, require
registration. The second appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.