C.A. Vaidialingam, J.

1. Subject to what is stated by me, regarding my views about the interpretation to be placed on the relevant provisions of the Madras Marumakkathayam Act, 1932 (Act No. XXII of 1933) hereinafter referred to as the Madras Act, arising for decision in C.R.P. No. 619/63, I agree with the majority view, just now expressed regarding their decision in C.R.P.Nos. 1075/62,1120/62 and A.S. 179/63, which arise under the Travancore Nayar Act, (Act II of 1100), the Travancore Ezhava Act (Act III of 1100) and the Cochin Nayar Act (Act No.XXIX of 1113) respectively. But with regard to the majority decision, on the question of the right of a member of a Marumakkathayam tarwad governed by the Madras Act, to alienate his undivided interest, or the right of a creditor to attach the undivided interest of such a member of a Marumakkathayam tarwad, governed by the provisions of the Madras Act, with respect, I regret, I am not inclined to agree.

2. With reference to the decision of the majority expressed under the other three enactments, referred to earlier, I am agreeing with the opinion expressed by them only because of certain special provisions contained in those statutes