P. S. NARAYANA, J. ( 1 ) HEARD Mr. V. L. N. G. K. Murthy and Mr. M. Ram Mohan representing mr. M. S. R. Siibrahmanyam, the Counsel representing the respective parties. ( 2 ) THE dispute relates to the execution of a maintenance decree. The revision petitioner is the judgment debtor No. 14 in e. P. No. 28/99 in O. S. No. 282/72 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Razole. The decree-holder filed E. P. No. 28/99 under order 21, Rules 64 and 66 CPC for sale of charged property for realisation of the decretal amount with subsequent interest and costs. The revision petitioner had filed a counter raising the question regarding the liability of the 13th defendant ahead of the 14th defendant i. e. , the present revision petitioner. The Court below had overruled the objections raised by the revision petitioner-14th judgment debtor and had posted the E. P. for settlement of terms and aggrieved by the said order, the present revision is filed by the revision petitioner. ( 3 ) THE facts in brief are that one Musti rajya Lakshmi, W/o. Suryanarayana Sarma, filed O. S. No. 282/72 on the file of the court of the Principal District Munsif, Razole for enhancement of maintenance from rs. 100/- to Rs. 1,000/- per month and the case of the plaintiff in the said suit is that her step sons etc. , had executed a registered maintenance deed dated 6. 9. 1933 in her favour providing for her maintenance and creating a charge over the plaint schedule properties and other properties for maintenance and subsequent thereto, the joint and several liability was split up as per the decree in O. S. No. 36 of 1949 on the file of Principal District Munsif, Razole, and as per the terms of the said decree, an amount of Rs. 100/- per annum was payable by each branch to the plaintiff and inasmuch as the amounts were not being paid regularly, the plaintiff therein had obtained separate maintenance decree against her step sons and their legal representatives and had obtained a decree in O. S. No. 16/1958 on the file of Principal District Munsiff, Razole, against defendant Nos. 100/- per annum was payable by each branch to the plaintiff and inasmuch as the amounts were not being paid regularly, the plaintiff therein had obtained separate maintenance decree against her step sons and their legal representatives and had obtained a decree in O. S. No. 16/1958 on the file of Principal District Munsiff, Razole, against defendant Nos. 1 to 6 wherein a charge was created over the properties described in the plaint schedule and the 7th defendant was an alienee subsequent to the decree in O. S. No. 16/58 and that she was entitled to enhancement of maintenance. Defendant Nos. l3 and 14 were impleaded in the suit as subsequent purchasers and 13th defendant purchased items 2 to 5 of the plaint schedule property in a Court auction sale in the year 1959 subject to the maintenance decree against the 1 st defendant and others and subsequently, items 3 to 5 were sold to 12th defendant by way of registered sale deed, dated 28. 12. 1970 and defendant Nos. 1 to 4 sold items 6 and 7 by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 16. 9. 1942 to the father of 14th defendant and thus, 14th defendant inherited the said property from his father. Defendant Nos. l to 6 sold item No. 1 of the plaint schedule property along with some other properties to the 14th defendant under a registered sale deed dated 1. 9. 1963 and 14th defendant had taken a specific plea in the written statement in the suit itself that the purchase by the 13th defendant being in a Court auction sale in 1959 subject to the maintenance charge against the 1st defendant and others, the plaintiff can claim relief only against 13th defendant and not against 14th defendant for items 1, 6 and 7. There was enhancement of maintenance from Rs. 100/- to Rs. 1,000/- by a decree dated 31. 7. 1984 declaring charge over all the plaint schedule properties specified as items 1 to 7 for realisation of the maintenance amount due to the plaintiff and aggrieved by the said decree, the revision petitioner filed A. S. No. 31/84 on the file of the Subordinate Judge s Court at Razole and the said appeal was dismissed and aggrieved by the same, S. A. No. 138/98 on the file of this Court was filed and the same was dismissed at the stage of admission. But, however, while dismissing the second appeal, certain observations had been made relating to the inter se disputes of 13th and 14th defendants. In the present E. P. , the revision petitioner filed a counter specifically raising the question relating to the liability of the 13th defendant, ahead of 14th defendant. 13th defendant as such had not filed any counter. However, the E. P. was not pressed against 13th defendant and accordingly, the e. P. was dismissed as against 13th defendant on 22. 12. 1999 and the E. P. is being further proceeded with against 14th defendant only for realisation of the entire decretal amount. ( 4 ) MR. V. L. N. G. K. Murthy, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner had strenuously contended that the Court below had not appreciated the objections raised by the revision petitioner in proper perspective. The learned Counsel also had contended that while not pressing the E. P. against 13th defendant alone, virtually it is for the Court to decide the inter se dispute between defendant Nos. 13 and 14 about the proportion at which maintenance amount can be paid by them and by virtue of not pressing the E. P. against 13th defendant, now the E. P. cannot be proceeded with against 14th defendant alone and the E. P. is liable to be dismissed in toto, instead the court below had totally erred in ordering further steps as against the revision petitioner- 14th defendant in the suit. The learned counsel had drawn my attention to the observations made in the second appeal while dismissing the second appeal. ( 5 ) MR. Ram Mohan representing mr. M. S. R. Subrahmanyam, on the other hand, vehemently contended that the decreeholder, who is the legal representative of the deceased Rajyalaxmi, and who was brought on record during the pendency of the appeal, is entitled to execute the decree against anyone of the judgment-debtors to enforce the chrage since the liability is joint and several. The learned Counsel also had contended that the second appeal was dismissed at the stage of admission virtually confirming the judgment and decree of the courts below and hence, the observations, if any, cannot override the judgment and decree as such. The learned Counsel also had contended that the second appeal was dismissed at the stage of admission virtually confirming the judgment and decree of the courts below and hence, the observations, if any, cannot override the judgment and decree as such. The learned Counsel also had submitted that the revision petitioner is entitled to raise an independent objection, if he chooses to do so in the light of the observations made in the second appeal and he did not wait till the decree-holder filed the E. P. The learned Counsel also had made an attempt to draw a distinction between the rights of the revision petitioner-judgment- doubter raising an independent objection and also the right of the decree-holder to proceed with the execution by bringing anyone of the items of the charged property as the decree-holder likes. The learned Counsel also had contended that such restrictions are embargo, which cannot be spelt out from the decree as such, cannot be read into the decree and hence, the Court below is justified in overruling the objections raised by the revision petitioner. ( 6 ) THE dispute relates to enforcement of a maintenance decree. By virtue of the maintenance decree sought to be enforced in E. P. No. 28/99 in O. S. No. 282/72 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Razole, charge had been created against all the items. Section 100 of the Transfer of Property act, 1882, dealing with the charges reads as follows: 100. Charges :where immovable property of one person is by act of parties or operation of law made security for the payment of money to another, and the transaction does not amount to a mortgage, the latter person is said to have charge on the properly, and all the provisions hereinbefore contained which apply to a simple mortgage shall, so far as may be, apply to such charge. Nothing in this section applies to the charge of a trustee on the trust property for expenses properly incurred in the execution of his trust, and, save as otherwise expressly provided by any law for the time being in force, no charge shall be enforced against any property in the hands of a person to whom such property has been transferred for consideration and without notice of the charge. ( 7 ) IN K. Muthuswami Gounder v. N. Palaniappa Gounder, (1998) 7 SCC 327 at page 335, it was observed that a charge is an obligation to make payment out of the property specified. In Naganna Naidu v. J. K. Ranga Rao, AIR 1959 AP 622 , it was held that Section 100 of the Transfer of property Act is restricted in its operation to two categories of charges, namely those created by act of parties and those created by operation of law and charges created by decrees of Courts are not included and such charges are not charges created by operation of law. In T. Rama Seshagiri Rao v. V. N. Ksamalukumari. AIR 1982 AP 107 , it was observed that a charge can be created by act of parties or by operation of law, in which case, it will be a charge within the meaning of Section 100 of the Transfer of Property act. ( 8 ) IN the present case, the facts are not in controversy. But, the main controversy appears to be the proportionality of the maintenance amount payable by defendant nos. 13 and 14. It is no doubt true that the stand of 14th defendant is that 13th defendant alone is liable to pay the amount. It is undoubtedly an inter se dispute between defendant Nos. 13 and 14 in the suit. So far as the decree-holder is concerned, when the decree as such was not modified even in the second appeal, the decree stands as it is. But, however, in the present case, the matter does not end there. In S. A. No. 138/98 by judgment dated 4. 8. 1998, it was observed by this Court "so far as the contention of the appellant that the 13th defendant alone is responsible to pay the entire enhance maintenance is concerned, it is a matter to be decided by the executing Court. Inter se dispute between defendant 13 and 14 about the proportion at which maintenance amount should be paid by them will be decided when this dispute is raised before the executing Court. " It is no doubt contended by Mr. Inter se dispute between defendant 13 and 14 about the proportion at which maintenance amount should be paid by them will be decided when this dispute is raised before the executing Court. " It is no doubt contended by Mr. Ram Mohan that the second appeal was dismissed at the stage of admission and these observations cannot come in the way of the first respondent-decree holder executing the decree against all the items or anyone of the items against which a maintenance charge already had been created. The most interesting and crucial aspect is that the reasons for not pressing the E. P. against 13th defendant and proceeding against 14th defendant alone are not forthcoming. The first respondent-decree holder by adopting this method virtually had made the executing Court incompetent to decide the inter se dispute between defendant Nos. 13 and 14 about the proportion at which maintenance amount should be paid by them. An objection before an executing Court always necessarily need not be raised by an independent application and when the decree is put into execution, the judgment-debtor is entitled to raise an objection by way of a counter also and in the present case, the revision petitioner-14th defendant had rightly raised these objections on the strength of the observations made in S. A. No. 138/98. But, the Court below without properly considering the legal effect of the directions of the observations made in S. A. No. 138/98 had directed the further steps to be proceeded in the E. P. It is also pertinent to note that merely because a party chooses to not press a proceeding against a particular party, necessarily in all cases the Court should not permit such a method if the Court is satisfied that by adopting such a method virtually it may amount to nullify the effect of the directions in a binding judgment rendered by the higher Courts. In the light of the above facts, i am of the considered opinion that the impugned order as such is not sustainable in law and is liable to be set aside. But, however, the decree is one for realisation of maintenance creating a charge over several items of the property. In a case of this nature, the executing Court is expected to decide the objections raised by the revision petitioner-14th defendant, in the presence of the 13th defendant, if necessary. But, however, the decree is one for realisation of maintenance creating a charge over several items of the property. In a case of this nature, the executing Court is expected to decide the objections raised by the revision petitioner-14th defendant, in the presence of the 13th defendant, if necessary. Hence, i am inclined to remit the matter back to the court below for the purpose of affording opportunity to both the parties to put forth their respective stands and decide the matter afresh in accordance with law. The CRP is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs.