JUDGMENT Verma, J. - This is a second appeal by the defendant m a suit for possession of certain property. The claim was based on the allegation that plaintiff 1 was the nearest reversioner to the estate of one Kalpu deceased and that the defendant, being a stepmother of Kalpu, was not an hen of Kalpu under the law. The defendant did not deny that she was the step-mother of Kalpu. Her defence was that the reversioner set up by the plaintiffs was not correct and that none of the plaintiffs was a reveisioner of Kalpu. The Court of first instance held that the pedigree put forward by the plaintiffs was not proved and that therefore the plaintiffs were not the revisioners of Kalpu, and dismissed the suit on that finding. On appeal by the plaintiffs, the lower appellate Court held that the pedigree set up by the plaintiffs had been proved and that, according to that pedigree, plaintiff 1 was nearest reversioner of Kalpu deceased. That Court, accordingly, reversed the decree of the trial Court and passed a decree for possession in favour of plaintiff 1. The defendant filed this second appeal against that decree. The appeal came up for hearing before the late Chief Justice on 26th November 1940 and he held that plaintiff 1 was entitled to succeed to the property on the death of Kalpu and that he was, therefore, entitled to possession. It was however urged before him by learned counsel for defendant-appellant that the defendant being entitled to maintenance under the law, the Court below was wrong m passing an unconditional decree for possession. The late Chief Justice observed that the question of maintenance had not been investigated in the Courts below and remitted the following issue to the lower appellate Court: "To what maintenance is the defendant entitled?" The Court below has sent up a finding on the issue so remitted and has held that the defendant is entitled to the sum of Rs. 2-8-0 per month as maintenance. 2. Learned counsel for the defendant-appellant urges that a decree for possession should not be passed in favour of the reversioner without making provision for the maintenance of the defendant. That the defendant is entitled to be maintained out of the estate cannot be denied. 2-8-0 per month as maintenance. 2. Learned counsel for the defendant-appellant urges that a decree for possession should not be passed in favour of the reversioner without making provision for the maintenance of the defendant. That the defendant is entitled to be maintained out of the estate cannot be denied. The only question that has been raised is whether it would be right to pass a decree in respect of the defendant's maintenance in this suit. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs-respondents has urged that no decree can be passed in favour of the defendant in this suit and that the only course open to the Court is to leave the defendant to seek her remedy by means of a suit if the reversioner does not pay the amount found by the Court below to be the proper amount of money which she is entitled to get from the estate for her maintenance. Learned counsel for the defendant-appellant has invited my attention to the case in ('94) 18 Bom. 452, Yellawa v. Bhimangavda. That case goes the whole length of the appellant's argument. There also the question as to the maintenance of the defendant was raised for the first time in second appeal. It is true that the learned Judges referred to an earlier decision of their own Court and observed that it was the settled practice of that Court not to allow the heir to recover the family property from a widow entitled to be maintained out of it without first securing a proper maintenance for her out of the property. I see, however, no valid reason why this Court should not follow such a practice. As was observed by the late Chief Justice, it is in the interests of justice that, instead of forcing the defendant to file a suit for maintenance, the question be disposed of in the present suit. Reference may also be made to the type of cases of which Jagarnath Singh and Others Vs. Damodar Singh and Others is an example. The finding of the lower appellate Court that the proper amount of maintenance for the defendant-appellant is Rs. 2-8-0 per month is a finding of fact and must be accepted in second appeal. The decree passed by the lower appellate Court must therefore be varied. 3. Damodar Singh and Others is an example. The finding of the lower appellate Court that the proper amount of maintenance for the defendant-appellant is Rs. 2-8-0 per month is a finding of fact and must be accepted in second appeal. The decree passed by the lower appellate Court must therefore be varied. 3. For the reasons given above, I modify the decree of the lower appellate Court by directing that to the decree for possession over the property passed by that Court in favour of plaintiff 1, the following clause be added: "It is declared hereby that the said plaintiff 1 takes the property awarded to him subject to the obligation to pay to the defendant, Mt. Dhanraji Kunwar, the sum of Its. 30 per annum on account of the latter's maintenance, the same being payable in four equal instalments of Rs. 7-8-0 each, which shall be payable by the said plaintiff to the said defendant, during the latter's life-time, on 31st March, on 30th June, on 30th September and on 31st December, every year. It is further declared that the amount, of maintenance, mentioned above, is a charge on the property over which possession has been decreed to the said plaintiff." I further direct that the parties shall bear their own costs throughout.