1. We have no doubt but that the finding of the Court below on both the issues raised before it is correct, and that the legal inferences drawn
therefrom are also correct. It is urged in appeal that the appellant was materially prejudiced by the absence of an issue as to whether or not the
fraud of the appellant''s late husband was accomplished in a substantial manner. We cannot admit this plea; It was the appellant''s case that her late
husband''s acts were without consideration and were done with a view to defraud creditors. The evidence of the appellant''s own first, third and
fifth witnesses shows that he Was successful, and induced his creditors thereby to give up their claims to large sums of money. It seems to us to be
clear that the deceased could not, if now alive, come into Court and claim to have his own fraudulent acts set aside. But it is argued that the
appellant, as his widow, is in a better position, and may claim relief against the consequences of her late husband''s fraudulent transfers. We are
unable to admit that in the present case the widow is in a better position than her husband would be, if alive. It is argued that the widow has a right
to maintenance out of her husband''s property, and has, therefore, an interest therein which ipso facto gives her a right to impeach its alienation,
independently of the interest which she takes as widow and representative of the late owner. The case of Ramanadan v. Rangammal ILR 12 Mad.
260 is relied on in support of this contention. In regard to this plea, we think it enough to observe that there is no question of maintenance in the
present case. We offer no opinion as to whether a widow might successfully maintain a claim for maintenance out of property alienated by her
husband without consideration and fraudulently if she herself was no party to the fraud, but that is not the present case. Here she claims to set aside
fraudulent transactions by which her husband profited and by which she, as his representative, has also presumably benefited. This the Courts will
not assist her to accomplish. The learned Judge has gone fully into the authorities on this question and we entirely concur in the conclusions at
which be has arrived. We confirm the decree of the lower Court and dismiss this appeal with costs.
