JUDGMENT E.K. Moidu, J. 1. The question raised in this second appeal is whether a Hindu widow whose claim for maintenance had already been agreed upon and made a charge on the joint family properties under a written contract would not be entitled to get enhanced maintenance over the same properties even if those properties were sold away later from the joint family to third parties for a debt valid and binding on the joint family's estate with notice of such charge to the alienees. 2. This question was raised in the trial court in a suit instituted by the respondent plaintiff against the appellant who is the defendant to the suit. Nne Narayana Bhatta is the brother of the deceased husband of the respondent. Narayana Bhatta executed a karar on 10-5-1919 agreeing to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 80/- a year to the respondent charging it on the plaint properties which belonged to the joint family of Narayana Bhatta and his deceased brother. Later the said properties had been sold for family necessity to the appellant's family and thereafter under a partition the appellant became solely entitled to the plaint properties. Subsequent to the original agreement there was a mediation by which the maintenance rate due to the respondent was enhanced to Rs. 125/- a year. Though the appellant did not concede i to the enhancement, the suit was laid by the respondent claiming maintenance at a higher rate. Both the courts below found that the respondent would be entitled to get Rs. 500/- a year towards her maintenance out of the plaint schedule properties. Accordingly, both the trial court as well as the lower appellate court passed a decree for Rs. 500/- a year towards the respondent's maintenance as a charge over the plaint schedule properties. It is against this decree and judgment that the second appeal is preferred. 3. The question posed before this Court is whether the respondent would be entitled to claim enhanced rate of maintenance after the property had been sold away from the joint family for a debt which was valid and binding on the family estate. The learned counsel of the appellant however did not contend that the respondent is not entitled to any maintenance. According to the learned counsel the amount of Rs. The learned counsel of the appellant however did not contend that the respondent is not entitled to any maintenance. According to the learned counsel the amount of Rs. 80/- a year as originally fixed in the karar dated 10-5-1919 would be valid and binding on the appellant, but he disputed only the claim for enhanced maintenance. 4. The claim for enhanced maintenance after the joint family properties had been sold away out of the family for a valid and binding debt on the family estate was the subject matter of consideration in some of the earlier decisions. Mulla, the learned author of Hindu Law, 13th Edn., at page 557 observed as follows: "Therefore, if property belonging to the husband or to the joint family is sold in liquidation of such debts, the sale is binding on the widow, and she has no right of maintenance against the purchaser or against the property sold to him, even if the purchaser had notice of her claim for maintenance, But where maintenance has been made a charge upon the property, it takes precedence over the right of a subsequent purchaser of the same property in execution of a money decree, though the decree was in respect of debts binding on the family. As the Privy Council has laid down in a recent case, of the two obligations which confront a joint family, viz., (1) the obligation to pay family debts and (2) the duty to provide maintenance to the widows of the family, the first would have preference over the second so long as neither of these obligations has taken the form of a charge on the family property; but if either of them assumes the shape of a charge it would take precedence over the other." In Somasundaram Chetty v. Unnamalai Ammal and two others (XLIII. ILR Mad. 800) it is held that a charge on joint family properties created by a decree for maintenance payable to the widow of a member of a joint Hindu family takes precedence over the right of a subsequent purchaser of the same properties in execution of a money decree binding on the family. 5. ILR Mad. 800) it is held that a charge on joint family properties created by a decree for maintenance payable to the widow of a member of a joint Hindu family takes precedence over the right of a subsequent purchaser of the same properties in execution of a money decree binding on the family. 5. The learned counsel of the appellant raised the contention that if the properties of the joint family had been sold away for a valid and binding debt, the right, title and interest of the widow would no longer be available to claim any maintenance in respect of such properties. But as pointed out above, the earlier charge created in favour of the widow would take precedence over the later charge on account of the family debt. The learned counsel however relied upon a decision reported in Ambika Rai and another v. Mt. Tertara Kuer (AIR 1956 Patna 293). That was a case in which a claim to enhanced maintenance fixed by a decree was turned down on the ground that the claim could not succeed against a transferee. Choudhary, J. based his conclusion entirely on the principle that until a charge was created on a property the person entitled to receive maintenance from that property would have no right to claim maintenance from its profits, and that the right to claim maintenance in that way came to an end if there was transfer of the property to a bona fide purchaser. That decision would not in any way affect the claim of the respondent in the instant case as it is clear that there had already been a charge created in favour of the respondent long before the property was sold away for a binding debt of the family. The decision reported in Ramamurthi v. Kanakaratnam (AIR 1948 Mad. 208) has also no application to the facts in the instant case. That was a case where there was an alienation of property from the profits of which the widow could have claimed maintenance even before she obtained a charge on it and the principle made out in that case was that if the alienation made was an alienation which was permissible under the Hindu Law the right of the widow to claim maintenance from the profits would disappear. I might add that in that case the charge in favour of the widow was not created before the alienation. I would therefore distinguish those cases from the facts of the present case in as much as there was already a charge created in favour of the widow under a family agreement and the said agreement would be valid and binding on the future alienees of the joint family properties. In this case it is admitted that the appellant had notice of the charge. 6. Even under S.39 of the Transfer of Property Act the claim by the widow could be sustained. S.39 reads as follows:- "39. Where a third person has a right to receive maintenance, or a provision for advancement or marriage, from the profits of immovable property, and such properly is transferred, the right may be enforced against the transferee, if he has notice (thereof) or if the transfer is gratuitous; but not against a transferee for consideration and without notice of the right, nor against such property in his hands." This Section makes it clear that the right conferred under that Section could be enforced against the transferee either if he had notice of the transfer or if the transfer was gratuitous; but if the transfer was for consideration and without notice of the right it could not be enforced against the transferee or against the properties in his hands. The question whether the right of a member of a joint family to get maintenance cannot be defeated by an alienation effected for discharging other debts of the transferor cannot be raised in the light of the plain meaning of the language of S.39. 7. The claim for enhanced maintenance by a widow was considered in a decision reported in Vedavathi Williams v Rama Bai (AIR 1964 Mys. 265) The facts of that case are more or less similar. In that decision Somnath Iyer, J., speaking for the Division Bench, said :- "S.39 of the Transfer of Property Act employs the words "where a third person has a right to receive maintenance." The right to receive maintenance about which this section speaks is not only the right to receive maintenance in the first instance but also the right to receive enhanced maintenance which may be claimed if there is a material change of circumstances. For the same reasons for which the plaintiff would have been able to enforce her right to receive maintenance against defendant 2 on the property purchased by her even if there was no decree in her favour we should, in my opinion, say that the plaintiff has also the right to enforce her right to receive enhanced maintenance against defendant 2 and the property purchased by her. It is not, in my opinion, necessary to enforce that right to prove that defendant 2 had notice of any intention on the part of any one to defeat that right. What ensures the success of the right to enhanced maintenance is the fact that defendant 2 had notice of that right." 8. Subramonian Poti J. on a consideration of the above decision as well as other decisions came to the same conclusion in Kaveri Amma v. Parameswari Amma ( 1971 KLT 299 ). At page 306 the learned Judge states:- "The learned counsel wants to restrict the meaning of the term "right to receive maintenance" so as to exclude any claim to receive enhanced maintenance. I see no justification to I limit it in such a manner. A Hindu widow's right to claim maintenance against a joint family estate is a recurring right. It is a right which may be enforced for each period with reference to the circumstances obtaining at the time. The fact that a person obtained a decree in enforcement of such right for any particular period does not in any way disable such person, in law, to claim maintenance for a future period. The adjudication of such claim would depend upon the circumstances obtaining during the period for which a claim is made. This being the case, a right to receive maintenance within the meaning of S.39 will include not only the right to receive maintenance either by agreement or by way of decree but also the right to claim enhanced maintenance from time to time. If so viewed, S.39 would necessarily apply to the ease of the plaintiff to enable her to claim enhanced maintenance as against the defendants." 9. If so viewed, S.39 would necessarily apply to the ease of the plaintiff to enable her to claim enhanced maintenance as against the defendants." 9. In the light of the above decisions and the circumstances of the case I am constrained to hold that a Hindu widow would be entitled to enhanced maintenance as a charge on the joint family property even if the properties had been sold away to third parties for valid and binding debts of the family provided there was already a charge in favour of the widow prior to the alienation and that the alienee had notice of that charge. In the light of this conclusion and there being no dispute about the quantum of the maintenance find that the courts below were correct and that no interference in second appeal is called for. In the result, the second appeal is dismissed with costs.