JUDGMENT: This is an appeal directed against the order and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge of Ramanathapuram at Madurai in E. P. No. 20 of 1954 in O. S. No. 29 of 1948.

2. The facts are: The petitioner Seethalakshmi Ammal had obtained a maintenance decree in a partition suit O. S. No. 29 of 1948, in regard to which a charge was created on certain items of the plaint Aschedule. This Seethalakshmi Ammal is seeking to bring these properties to sale and the question to be decided is whether a separate suit should be filed or whether the right can be enforced in execution. The lower Court held that a separate suit should be filed. Hence this appeal.

3. There can be no doubt that a separate suit should have been filed if the charge created in this case falls under S. 100 of the Transfer of Property Act. Section 100 defines "a charge" and states what provisions of the Act apply thereto and against whom it is enforceable.

4. A person according to this section is said to have a charge on the immovable property belonging to another when (1) such property is made security for the payment of money due by the latter, and (2) such transaction does not amount to a mortgage. A mortga