JUDGMENT - N.P. CHAPALGAONKER, J.:--Prayagbai, petitioner herein filed Regular Civil Suit No. 350 of 1973 in the Court of Civil Judge (J.D.), Ambajogai, against her husband Shankarbuva, claiming maintenance at the rate of Rs. 75/- per month. In the said suit. Ramchandra s/o. Bapu Puri, minor under the guardianship of his father Bapu and Bapu s/o. Bala Puri, third parties, filed an application contending that they are in actual possession of Survey number 478 and House No. 61/1 on the basis of purchase of portion of the land and agricultural tenancy and, therefore, they are necessary parties to the suit. The said application came to be allowed and they were added as defendant Nos. 2 and 3. The learned Judge was pleased to decree the suit by granting maintenance at the rate of Rs. 75/- per month and was also pleased to create a charge of the maintenance on survey number 478 situated at Ghatnandur which has a well and 12 mango trees. Appeal filed by Ramchandra (who was then major) and his father Bapu came to be partly allowed, whereas the order of the maintenance was kept in tact, the charge was limited to the extent of 6 Acres western portion from Survey number 478. Thereafter, in the year 1980, Prayagbai filed an another suit bearing number 555 of 1988 praying for the enhancement of the maintenance which was decreed and the maintenance amount was enhanced to Rs. 225/- per month. The charge of the enhanced maintenance was also recreated by the said decree dated 24th September, 1982. In this suit, besides Shankarbuva, Ramchandra and Bapu were also parties. Besides enhancing the maintenance, the learned Judge was pleased to order that the charge is created over 6 Acres western portion of Survey number 478 firstly and if it is found that the decree cannot be satisfied out of this property, then a further charge is kept on the remaining 10 Acres 5 Gunthas area from Survey number 478. This decree came to be challenged by Ramchandra and Bapu Puri in an appeal in the District Court. The learned Assistant Judge was pleased to allow the appeal partly and while maintaining the quantum of enhanced maintenance at Rs. 225/- per month, he was pleased to modify the order regarding charge and was pleased to limit the charge to western 6 Acres area out of Survey number 478. The learned Assistant Judge was pleased to allow the appeal partly and while maintaining the quantum of enhanced maintenance at Rs. 225/- per month, he was pleased to modify the order regarding charge and was pleased to limit the charge to western 6 Acres area out of Survey number 478. Further order to keep charge on the remaining portion came to be set aside. Thereafter, an execution petition bearing number 9 of 1990 came to be filed in the Court of Civil Judge (J.D.), Ambajogai. Ramchandra was shown to be sole surviving judgment-debtor in the execution petition. Since Shankarbuva, husband of the petitioner, Prayagbai, and Bapu Puri-defendant No. 3 in the original suit had both expired, the learned Judge, was pleased to issue a warrant under Order XXI, Rule 43 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. On 8th February, 1991, Ramchandra filed an application praying that the application for the execution be dismissed since judgment-debtor No. 1, Shankarbuva died on 18th October, 1987 and the decreeholder herself has become owner of land Survey number 478 to the extent of eastern 10 Acres and 5Gunthas portion alongwith her daughter and the decree in Regular Civil Suit No. 555 of 1980 was operative and effective only during the lifetime of judgment-debtor No. 1, Shankarbuva, and is not executable against objection petitioner in the changed circumstances. The learned Judge was pleased to hold that the decree-holder has not brought the legal representatives on record and the decree is a personal decree and, therefore, it will have to be dismissed. This order dated 13th December, 1991 is the subject matter of this Civil Revision Application. 2. Shri V.R. Sonwalkar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, contended that the obligation to pay maintenance if crystalized in the form of a decree does not remain personal one and the decreeholder is entitled to follow the property particularly when a charge is created on it. He further submitted that heirs required to be brought on record in this proceeding are the heirs who have meddled with the property and since they are already on record, the decree can well be executed against them. He further contended that even assuming that the heirs of deceased Shankarbuva should have been brought on record, the execution petition should not have been dismissed on that ground. 3. He further contended that even assuming that the heirs of deceased Shankarbuva should have been brought on record, the execution petition should not have been dismissed on that ground. 3. Section 18 of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 lays down that Hindu wife is entitled to be maintained by her husband during her life. The right of the Hindu wife to be maintained by her husband is absolute and irrespective of the fact whether husband has any property or not. Under section 22 of the said Act, heirs of the deceased Hindu are bound to maintain the dependants of the deceased out of the estate inherited by them from the deceased. Section 21, which defines "Dependants" recognizes widow of the deceased to be such dependant so long as she does not remarry. Relying on these provisions, Mrs. M.A. Kulkarni, learned Counsel appearing for respondent, submitted that only the heirs who have inherited any property of the deceased are liable to maintain widow of the deceased and since respondent-Ramchandra has not inherited any property from the deceased, he cannot be required to maintain widow of deceased Shankarbuva. The only class-I heir left is the wife Prayagbai herself and no other dependant has inherited any property of the deceased and, therefore, Prayagbai cannot get maintenance by the execution of the decree in question. 4. In the instant case, Prayagbai had filed a suit in the lifetime of her husband, Shankarbuva, got a decree in her favour and defendants Ramchandra and Bapu who are alleged purchasers of 6 Acres Western portion from Survey number 478 were parties to the said decree and a charge was created in respect of that property, then the right of maintenance of Prayagbai was crystalized in a decree and the decree would be a valid decree during the lifetime of Prayagbai. If a right of maintenance is recognized by the decree and a charge is created on certain property, the decree is executable against the holders of that property. If a right of maintenance is recognized by the decree and a charge is created on certain property, the decree is executable against the holders of that property. Section 39 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 reads as under: "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 property 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." It is not the case of the present respondent, judgment-debtor-Ramchandra, that he had no notice of the right of maintenance of Prayagbai. In fact, he was a party in the suit itself and the charge was created by the decree. Previously it was necessary for the claimant of the maintenance to prove that the transfer is without legal necessity. However, after the omission of the words "with the intention of defeating such right" by Act No. 20 of 1929 in section 39 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, now claimant of the maintenance is not required to prove this ingredient. If the transferee has the notice of the said right, the charge would be there. Whatever contentions Ramchandra could have raised must be deemed to have been raised in the suit in which he was party and after hearing him, the charge is created. 5. Mrs. M.A. Kulkarni, learned Counsel appearing for respondent, submitted that the charge is co-extensive of the personal liability and since the husband is dead, the personal liability to maintain wife is not there and the charge also ceases to be operative, The nature of the right of maintenance of Hindu woman was considered by the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of (Raghunath Ambaidas Shet Chitode v. Dwarkabai Jagannath Set Chitode)1, A.I.R. 1941 Bombay 357. The learned Judge was pleased to observe :- "She has a right during as well as after her husband's lifetime of demanding maintenance as well as residence from the property, whether it is undivided or divided, belonging to her husband. The learned Judge was pleased to observe :- "She has a right during as well as after her husband's lifetime of demanding maintenance as well as residence from the property, whether it is undivided or divided, belonging to her husband. This right of maintenance attaches to the property itself which is taken by the surviving coparcener, and it is a burden on inheritance with the result that the widow is entitled to follow such property in the hands of the coparcener taking it. This rule applies even to the arrears of maintenance accrued due, because if the property belonging to the husband is liable for her maintenance, it must be liable as much for arrears as for future maintenance." The learned Judge further went on to observe :- "The rule that a creditor cannot follow the property in the hands of a surviving coparcener unless it has been previously attached during the lifetime of the deceased coparcener, cannot apply to the case of a Hindu widow both for arrears of maintenance as well as for future maintenance......... ......... ....... ......Although the husband's liability to maintain his wife is personal in its nature still the liability is not only of the nature of a personal obligation affording only a personal cause of action. It is also a liability which attaches to property." The question of effect of the death of the husband judgment-debtor on the maintenance decree obtained by the wife was considered by the learned Single Judge of Punjab High Court in (Ramesh Chander another v. Sh. Bibi Ved Kaur)2, A.I.R. (1951)38 Punjab 129, and the learned Judge was pleased to observe :- "In the case of a charge decree for maintenance obtained by a Hindu wife the fact of the death of the husband by itself does not in any way alter the foundation of the decree and does not make it inexecutable and 'prima facie' the decree enures for the lifetime of the decreeholder as against the charged property." This being the position, a charge created for the maintenance of a Hindu wife or widow is not only for the satisfaction of a personal obligation but it is a recognition of a liability attached to the property. In the instant case, the charge was created on the property and the property is in the hands of defendant-judgment-debtor. In the instant case, the charge was created on the property and the property is in the hands of defendant-judgment-debtor. Therefore, the liability to pay maintenance to Prayagbai continues even after the lifetime of her husband and it can be satisfied out of the property on which the charge is created. If the right of maintenance secured by a charge is a liability attached to the property, it follows that it is not co-extensive with the personal liability of the husband or his heirs. Any person who is in possession of such property is liable to satisfy the decree of maintenance. In fact, he is the legal representative within the meaning of section 2(11) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The definition of "Legal representative" in the Code reads as under :- "Legal representative' means a person who in law represents the estate of a deceased person and includes any person who intermeddles with the estate of the deceased and where a party sues or is sued in a representative character the person on whom the estate devolves on the death of the party so suing or sued." A useful reference can be made to the judgment of learned Single Judge of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of (Tadikonda Seetha Mahalaxmamma v. Mandadapu Davia Prasad others)3, A.I.R. 1984 N.O.C. 265(A.P.). The learned Judge was pleased to observe :- "The Hindu law also prohibits alienation of property by the husband or kartha or manager, which has the effect of depriving the wife and other dependants of their maintenance. Though the wife was treated as a member of the Hindu Joint Family, she has no right to seek partition. Therefore, she was declared entitled to maintenance out of the joint family property. Thereby, an interest is created in the property either self-acquired or joint family of the husband to fall back upon to enforce her right to maintenance, a personal obligation, by creating a charge on the properties, which could be enforced under section 39 of the Transfer of Property Act. Thereby, an interest is created in the property either self-acquired or joint family of the husband to fall back upon to enforce her right to maintenance, a personal obligation, by creating a charge on the properties, which could be enforced under section 39 of the Transfer of Property Act. That right was accorded statutory recognition by section 18 with the condition that the person who inherited the estate from the deceased must be the heir of the deceased Hindu." Considering the question as to who would be the heirs who are required to pay the maintenance, the learned Judge found that the liberal approach will have to be adopted to give effect to the legislative intendment and it would include donee, devisee near relations or strangers or gratuitous transferees with notice of her right. Noticing that the word "heir" is advisedly omitted in section 28 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, the learned Judge went on to observe: "Therefore, regardless of the fact whether the property passed on to heirs on succession, intestate or testamentary or on transfer inter vivos gratuitously or for consideration, the liability of the property for creation of charge is made amenable except property purchased without notice of such right." In the instant case, respondent-judgment-debtor is the person who meddles with the estate of the deceased and is a legal representative of Shankarbuva. Since the rignt to get maintenance from her husband is equivalent to right to get maintenance from the property of the husband, a decree passed in favour of a wife granting her maintenance is enforceable against the charged property and the obligation to pay maintenance continues and can be enforced against the said property. She cannot be compelled to apply again for the maintenance as widow against other heirs which her husband might have left. Therefore, the contention raised by the respondent that unless other heirs have been brought on record, the execution cannot proceed, must fail. 6. Mrs. M.A. Kulkarni, learned Counsel appearing for respondent, further submitted that since petitioner has now become owner of the property left behind by Shankarbuva as being the only Class-I heir left behind by him, she cannot be the owner of the property and simultaneously claim maintenance. The decree of maintenance would merge into the larger right of becoming owner of the property. This argument is fallacious. The decree of maintenance would merge into the larger right of becoming owner of the property. This argument is fallacious. The property Survey No. 478 situated at Ghatnandur, particularly 6 Acres portion is in possession of Ramchandra-respondent. It was already alienated to Ramchandra and Ramchandra was claiming ownership of the said property and is in possession of the same since the lifetime of the husband of Prayagbai. Therefore, there was no question of Prayagbai inheriting this property. It has also not been shown that any of the other property of the plaintiff have come in possession of Prayagbai and, therefore, the liability to pay maintenance ceases to operate. Therefore, respondent-Ramchandra is bound to pay maintenance to Prayagbai at the rate fixed by the Court under the decree so long as and as far as he holds the decree charged in the said decree. 7. Mrs. Kulkarni further relied on the judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of (Narayan Hulshing Pardeshi another v. Kasturbai Champlal Pardeshi)4, I.L.R. 1977 Bombay 2213. Learned Single Judge of this Court was pleased to hold that under section 22 of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, only persons liable for maintenance are the heirs of the deceased Hindu and that too out of the estate inherited by the deceased to maintain the dependants. In that case, order of maintenance was assailed on the ground that widow - applicant had herself become the owner of all the property. She being the only heir in Class-I, brothers falling in Class-II cannot be compelled to pay the maintenance since that had not inherited any property of deceased who died intestate. Relying on this judgment, Mrs. Kulkarni submitted, that since widow Prayagbai has now become owner of all the property, she cannot claim maintenance from any other person. The basic difference between the facts of this case and the case at hand is that in the case of Narayan Pardeshi (supra), property of deceased Champlal vested in Kasturbai and she was entitled to enjoyment of the same as owner. Therefore, Kasturbai was not entitled to claim maintenance from brothers of deceased Champlal. The basic difference between the facts of this case and the case at hand is that in the case of Narayan Pardeshi (supra), property of deceased Champlal vested in Kasturbai and she was entitled to enjoyment of the same as owner. Therefore, Kasturbai was not entitled to claim maintenance from brothers of deceased Champlal. In the instant case, no property of the deceased was left to be inherited by Prayagbai and, on the contrary, the property from which she could have claimed maintenance was already sold to the present petitioners and, therefore, the property is not in the hands of Prayagbai. If all the property which her deceased husband was in possession would have come to her as heir of the deceased husband, the question of maintenance would not have arisen. During the lifetime of the deceased Shankarbuva, property was sought to be disposed of and, therefore, suit was filed adding purchasers in the array of defendants and the charge was created. 8. In the result, Civil Revision Application is allowed. The judgment and order passed by learned Joint Civil Judge (J.D.), Ambajogai, in Regular Darkhast No. 9 of 1990 on 13th December, 1991 is hereby set aside. Application Exhibit 9/D filed by judgment-debtor Ramchandra in the said Darkhast is hereby dismissed. The application for the execution of the decree stands revived. Further steps in the execution of the decree are directed. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs of this revision application. 9. At this stage, Mrs. M.A. Kulkarni, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent, prayed that the operation of the order of this Court be stayed for a period of eight weeks from today. Prayer granted. The operation of the order of this Court in this Civil Revision Application is stayed only for a period of eight weeks from today. Application allowed.