1. The only point urged in appeal is that the decision of the lower Court on the first and second issues is incorrect.
2. The lower Court has dealt fully with the evidence in regard to the first issue, and we concur in the finding.
3. As regards the second issue we are also of opinion that the finding is correct. There is nothing in the plaint in Original Suit No. 34 of 1888 to
show that the then plaintiff desired to charge the present plaint property with her maintenance. She merely enumerated it and the other property of
the then defendant in order to enable the Court to determine what amount of maintenance might fairly be given. There was not then any right to
Immovable property directly and specifically in question, and consequently the doctrine of lis pendens has no application.
4. It would obviously be most inconvenient, if a man, no matter what his wealth might be, should be debarred from dealing with any of his
Immovable property, merely because a suit for a petty sum as maintenance, not sought to be charged on any specific part of his property, were
pending at the time.
5. We concur in the findings of the lower Court and dismiss this appeal with costs.
