AMMALU AMMA Vs. LAKSHMY AMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question is whether the interest of a Marumakkathayi in the property of his tarwad is liable to attachment in execution of a decree for his personal debt. In C. R. P. No 619 of 1963 this question has to be answered with reference to the provisions of the Madras. Marumakkathayam Act, 1932 (Act XXII of 1933); in C. R. P. No. 1075 of 1962 with reference to those of the Travancore Nayar Act, II of 1100; in C. R. P. No. 1120 of 1962 with reference to the provisions of the Travancore Ezhava Act, III of 1100; and in A. S. No. 179 of 1963 with reference to the provisions of the Cochin Nayar Act, XXIX of 1113.

(2.) Justice Vaidialingam before whom C. R. P. No. 1075 of 1962 came up felt that the Full Bench decision of this Court in Antherman v. Kannan 1960 KLT 1313 had cast doubt regarding the correctness of the earlier Full Bench decision in Bank of New India v. Ponnamma 1960 KLT 698 . In Bank of New India v. Ponnamma, 1960 KLT 698, this Court ruled that the undivided interest of a member of a Marumakkathayam tarwad governed by the Travancore Kshatriya Act, 1108 was liable to be attached and sold in execution of a personal decree obtained against him. The later Full Bench decision dealt with the question whether a member of a Marumakkathayam tarwad, governed by the Madras Marumakkathayam Act, 1932, was entitled to transfer his undivided interest in the tarwad property and came to the conclusion that he was not entitled to do so.

(3.) Though the question that arose for decision in the earlier case related to an involuntary alienation and the latter to a voluntary alienation, the principle that should be applied in determining the question whether a member of a Marumakkathayam tarwad has such an interest in tarwad property as is transferable, or liable to be seized in execution of a decree, is the same.