JUDGMENT :- A short question under the Mappilla Marumakkattayam Act (Madras Act 17 of 1939) arises for consideration in this second appeal. 2. Two Mappilla brothers belonging to a Mappilla Marumakkattayam tarwad executed a mortgage over their undivided share in the suit property, which is the tarwad house including the site of the buildings appurtenant thereto. The mortgagee filed a suit on the mortgage and it was contended on behalf of the mortgagors that no decree should be passed against the undivided share of the mortgagors, especially in view of the fact that the property involved in the mortgage was the tarwad house. The trial court accepted this contention; but the lower appellate court rejected it. The question for consideration is whether the view of the lower appellate court is correct. 3. Section 13 of the Act provides that any individual member of a tarwad may claim to take his or her share of the properties of the tarwad over which the tarwad has power of disposal and separate from the tarwad. Section 14 provides further that two or more members belonging to the same tavazhi may claim to take their share, separate from the tarwad and enjoy the same jointly, with all the incidents of tarwad property. Section 18 of the Act then enacts that succession to the property obtained by an individual member on partition shall be governed by the Islamic Law of inheritance. Section 16 imposes some restrictions on the partition of the tarwad house. 4. What appears from these provisions is that any individual member of a Mappilla Marumakkattayam tarwad has the right to claim his or her share of the properties at any time and separate from the tarwad. The partition that is contemplated under the Act is not merely tavazhi partition; on the contrary, every individual member, including a minor, even while his or her mother is alive, is given the right to claim a share and separate from the tarwad. Sections 13 and 15 clearly indicate that. Section 14 only shows that if two or more members of a tavazhi desire to take their share and enjoy the same as a tavazhi, they are free to do so. Sections 13 and 15 clearly indicate that. Section 14 only shows that if two or more members of a tavazhi desire to take their share and enjoy the same as a tavazhi, they are free to do so. This again confirms the position that any individual member has the right to claim his or her share at any time; and if he or she claims and takes the share, S. 18 lays down that succession to the property so obtained by an individual member shall be governed by the Islamic Law. These provisions show, according to me, that any individual member has the right to claim his or her share at any time, with the consequence that the member is also entitled to alienate his or her undivided share. The mortgage effected by the two members is therefore valid and binding on their share and the mortgagee is entitled to get a decree over that share. The question whether S. 16 of the Act applies can arise only in a partition of tarwad properties, the mortgagee after getting a decree on his mortgage, if he wants to get the share of his mortgagors, will have to face the consequence contemplated by S. 16. As pointed out by the lower appellate court, that question can arise only when a partition is sought of the tarwad properties and not earlier. In that view, I think the learned District Judge was right in granting the decree. 5. The learned advocate of the appellants draws my attention to the Full Bench decision of this Court in Antherman v. Kannan, ILR (1960) Ker 1490 : ( AIR 1961 Ker 130 ) and argues that the mere grant of a right of partition does not by implication confer a right of voluntary alienation of an undivided share. That was a case under the Madras Marumakkattayam Act, whereby only tavazhi partition was allowed, and that also not during the lifetime of the common ancestress. Further, under that Act, Marumakkattayam Law applies even to the property taken by a tavazhi on partition. The provisions relating to these matters in the Mappilla Marumakkattayam Act are different. Every individual member is entitled to claim partition; and succession to the property that fails to the share of the individual member in a partition is governed by the Islamic Law. The provisions relating to these matters in the Mappilla Marumakkattayam Act are different. Every individual member is entitled to claim partition; and succession to the property that fails to the share of the individual member in a partition is governed by the Islamic Law. I am inclined to think that these departures from the Marumakkattayam Act pointed definitely in the direction of more deviation from the old law relating to Mappillas than in the case of people governed by the Madras Marumakkattayam Act. Hence, I think, the Full Bench decision will not apply to this case. 6. The second appeal fails and is dismissed, but, in the circumstances, without costs. Appeal dismissed.