Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated June 22, 1961 of the Kerala High Court in A. S. No.
Both Exs.
5,000/ and under Ex.
The appellants sued for redemption and recovery of the suit lands alleging that Exs.
The subsequent documents, Exs.
A 1 was.
B 2, B 5, B 8, B 9, and B 10 executed between 1921 and 1944 all recited that Exs A 1 and B 1 were kanam kuzhikanam transactions.
after the expiry of 24 years until payment of the kanam amounts and the value of the trees planted by them.
A 1 and B 1 were styled kanam deeds.
The transfer was for the enjoyment of the lands with the standing trees and for the purpose of planting fruit bearing trees thereon.
Thus, all the companyditions of kanam kuzhikanam mentioned in the main part of s. 2 23 were satisfied.
A 1 and B 1 were in kanam kuzhikanam right.
A 1 and B 1 created usufructuary mortgages.
The respondents claimed that they were kanam kuzhikanamdars and entitled to fixing of tenure under s. 21 read with s. 3 15 of the Malabar Tenancy Act, 1929 Madras Act 14 of 1930 .
2 to 13.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Bachawat, J. The question in this appeal is whether Ex.
The transferees were entitled to appropriate the income of the lands in lieu of interest on the kanam amounts and to hold the lands even.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Instead, they described the transactions as kanam kuzhikanam and the amounts paid to the transferees as kanartham.
B 1 dated March 27, 1900 were kanam kuzhikanam transactions, or whether they created usu fructuary mortgages.
We agree with the Courts below that the transactions were kanamkuzhikanam and were number usufructuary mortgages.
Significantly, the parties did number describe the transactions to be a mortgage, otti, panayam or a kyvasam panayam.
The appellants number appeal to this Court by special leave.
During the pendency of this appeal, the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 Act 1 of 1964 came into force.
The trial Court upheld the respondents companyten tion and dismissed the suit.
567 of 1964.
Exhibits A 1 and B 1 read together show that both the transactions were kanam kuzhikanam.
A 1 dated March 26, 1900 and Ex.
On appeal, the Kerala High Court affirmed this decree.
Exhibits A 1 and B 1 did number purport to be and were number transactions for securing debts.
The kanam amount or the kanartham under Ex.
Ram Reddy, K. P. Madhava Menon and A. V. V. Nair, for respondents Nos.
243 of 1955 M .
R. Gokhale and A. G. Puddissery, for the appellants.
Both the transactions involve or may involve transfer of possession on payment of money by the transferee, set off of profits against interest and retention of possession until repayment of the money.
