- (1.) THE short point referred to the Pull Bench is as follows : "was the respondent's application for execution within time in respect of the earlier three years?" the facts of the case are that Shrimati Gulab Dei, respondent, filed a suit in the year 1920 against Sadhu Saran for arrears of maintenance and for future maintenance. She claimed that she was the widow of a member of the joint Hindu family and after the death of her husband she was liable to be maintained from the funds of that family of which Sadhu Saran was in possession as karta. On 13-12-1920, there was a compromise and a sum of money was paid towards the arrears and the future maintenance was fixed at Rs. 250/- per annum payable in four equal instalments falling due on the 31st of March, 30th of June, 30th of September and 31st of december in each year. A charge was also created on certain properties mentioned in the compromise. A decree was passed by the court in terms of the compromise.
(2.) THE judgment-debtor did not, however, pay the maintenance allowance regularly and a series of applications had to be made for execution of the decree. It is not necessary to deal with the earlier applications. The seventh application was filed on 3-3-1938, and the arrears claimed were up to 31-12-1937. It was prayed that certain items of property mentioned in the execution application and over which a charge had been created should be sold by auction. On 4-4-1940, the property was sold. On 8-6-1940, the sale was confirmed. On 22-2-1943, the decree-holder auction-purchaser applied for possession of the property purchased by her at auction. On 30-3-1943, possession was delivered. That terminated those proceedings.
(3.) ON 18-2-1941, the eighth application for execution was filed in which arrears of maintenance were claimed for the years 1938, 1939 and 1940. This application was dismissed for want of prosecution on 23-4-1941.;