The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the kuthakapattom right, its alienability, and the applicability of relevant statutory provisions in determining the saleability of attached property.

1. The decree-holder is the appellant. Under a compromise decree the defendant agreed to pay in instalments and failing the payment of instalments, it was agreed that the amount could be realised by the sale of the attached property (the property was already attached before judgment). The defendant defaulted, whereupon the property which was subjected to the attachment was brought to sale. The defendant then raised the objection that the property is not liable to be sold as he did not possess a saleable interest in it. The right he has in the property is a kuthakapattom right which under the Kuthakapattom Rules is not alienable by him. The objection was ruled out by the learned Munsiff as untenable; but in appeal the learned Subordinate Judge quashing that order has held that the kuthakapattom right is not alienable and as the judgment-debtor does not have disposing power or possess saleable interest in the property the sale cannot be had. It is against this finding of the learned appellate judge that the decree holder has come up in second appeal.

2. It is true that the property is not liable to sale in execution unless the judgment-debtor has a disposing power over it for his own benefit. R.26 (b) (i) of the Kuthakapattom Rules provides that:

"the lessee shall not alienate the lease without obtaining the previous sanction of the authority who granted the lease."

The alienation by the lessee, it is important to note, is not totally prohibited under the above rule. Alienations are made conditional on previous sanction being accorded by the government. With the sanction of the government, there fore, the lessee can transfer the right. Even if the above rule is construed as imposing an absolute prohibition, the prohibition can apply, only as against the sale by tenant; it does not prevent a sale by the court. Under similar circumstances a Full Bench of the erstwhile Travancore High Court had to consider the question in Kesavan Narayanan Empran v. Krishnan Govindan (22 TLJ. 968). There the property involved was kandukrishi land wherein also the tenant was prohibited from alienating the right without previous sanction of the government. On the question of the nature of the interest held by the kandukrishi tenant, the learned judges held in that case that though the tenant is only a tenant at will under the crown, the right possesed by such tenant was always regarded as valuable property. The learned judges held:

"It cannot be held that the interest of a tenant-at-will is an estate not known to the law or that it creates no right which cannot be attached and sold. Such a tenant has a right which is recognised by the law and is available against all the world except the landlord and even as against him his position is not like that of a mere tenant by sufference. A tenaney-at-will clearly gives rise to reciprocal rights and liabilities."

Held further that: "Ia the case of kandukrishi lands in the absence of any statutory provision to the contrary it must be held that the kandukrishi tenant has an interest in the lands which is saleable within the meaning of the first part of S.52 (corresponding to S.60 of the present Code). This view would be quite correct and proper even under the latter part of S.52 (1) in as much as the kandukrishi tenant is not one without any right of disposal over such lands. Under the present Civil Procedure Code the only restriction regaining the enforcement of rights arising under leases, mortgage of kandukrishi pattom lands have been removed and there is at present nothing to prevent such transferees from enforcing deeds executed in their favour by the holder of such lands. It is, therefore, impossible to hold that he holds these lands as a mere tenant-at-will with no powers of disposal at all over them."

Kandukrishi lands are homefarm lands of the sovereign. The holders of these lands are only tenants-at-will, and have no right to alienate the property by sale, gift or mortgage, or in any other way