The main legal point established in the judgment is that a Christian widow has a complete ownership of the share obtained under the Travancore Christian Succession Act, with full disposing power and a saleable interest in the property, which could be attached and sold in execution of any decree obtained against her.

1. The question that arises in this Second Appeal filed at the instance of the third defendant, is as to the nature of the rights in the property taken by a Christian widow, under the provisions of the Travancore Christian Succession Act - Act 11/1092.

2. The suit properties belonged to one Sebastian, husband of the first defendant, and father of defendants 2 to 5. After the death of Sebastian, the first defendant executed a promissory-note in favour of one Eliswa and the latter endorsed the promissory-note in favour of the present plaintiff. The latter instituted O.S. 245/1114 District Munsiff's Court, Parur, against the first defendant and her children for recovery of the amounts due under the promissory-note executed by the first defendant. It is seen that ultimately the plaintiff herein, obtained a decree only as against the first defendant in O.S. 245/ 1114. The present plaintiff also appears to have obtained an attachment before judgment of the properties and proceeded to execute his decree in O.S. 245/1114 and sold in court auction the 1/5 share of the first defendant in the suit properties on 28-1-1124 and he became also the purchaser of that share. Attempts were made to have the sale set aside, but without any success and the plaintiff also claims to have obtained delivery on 16-7-1951.

3. In the present suit the plaintiff seeks partition of the 1/5 share belonging to the first defendant in the suit properties, and of which he has already become the owner by virtue of the execution proceedings in O.S. 245/1114, District Munsiff's Court, Parur. Defendants 6 & 7 were added as parties, as they were claiming certain rights in the suit properties.

4. Defendants 1, 3 & 7 contested the claim of the plaintiff and even among them, the third defendant, one of the sons of the first defendant, was the main contesting defendant. All of them raised the contention that the proceedings in O.S. 245/1114 are vitiated by fraud and as such, they are not binding on any of the defendants. The third defendant in particular, claimed that the first defendant had no saleable or attachable interest in the properties, and as such, the plaintiff could not be considered in law to have purchased anything in execution of his decree in O.S. 245/1114. And as such, the third defendant further contended that the plaintiff has no right to claim a partition in these proceedings. The objections of the defendants that the proceedings connected with O. S.245/1114 were vitiated by fraud, were over-ruled. The learned District Munsiff held that those proceedings are binding on the first defendant. But according to the learned District Munsiff, the first defendant gets no share in the properties left by her deceased husband and as such there was no share which could have been attached and sold by the plaintiff. The learned District Munsiff, after a consideration of S.16, 24 & 25 of the Travancore Christian Succession Act-Act 11/1092, was of the view that the first defendant, as the widow of the deceased Sebastian, had no attachable or saleable interest in the suit properties. There are certain other points which are considered by the learned District Munsiff. As they have not been argued before me, it is unnecessary to consider that reasoning of the learned District Munsiff on those points.

5. In view of his finding that the first defendant had no attachable or saleable interest in the suit properties, the learned District Munsiff dismissed the suit directing the plaintiff to pay the costs of the third defendant and also further directing the other parties to bear their respective costs.

6. The plaintiff carried the matter on appeal before the learned Subordinate Judge of Parur in A. S.312/1956. The learned judge was not prepared to agree with the view of the trial court as to the nature of the right obtained by the first defendant, as a Christian widow, under the Travancore Christian Succession Act. The fact that S.24 of the Act provides for the widow ha