1. This second appeal arising in execution raises a short question whether a melvaram right is liable for attachment and sale in execution of a decree. The judgment debtor appellant unsuccessfully contended before the lower courts that it was not attachable because of S.60 (f) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The same contention is raised in second appeal as well.

2. Only two documents were marked in evidence before the lower courts, Ex. A-1 being a kanom document executed by the judgment debtor in favour of a third party and Ex. BI being the judgment of the Madras High Court in S. A. No. 1055 of 1894. No evidence appears to have been adduced to show the real nature of melvaram right; that is, whether it was a service tenure or not. Before me a certified copy of the judgment in O. S. No. 422 of 1892 on the file of the Court of the District Munsiff of Taliparamba, which ultimately went up to the High Court in S. A. No. 1055 of 1894. has been produced. That was a suit between the judgment-debtor's predecessor, i. e., the successor of the original grantee, and the successors of the original grantor of the melvaram right. In considering Issue No. 6 in that suit, namely, wheth