HUSSAIN THANGAL Vs. ALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question is whether the transfer effected by the deed Ext. B1 dated 26th April 1920 (there is a counter-part, Ext. Al, of the same date), under which defendants 5 to 9 claim to be in possession of the property in, suit is a kanom entitling these defendants to fixity of tenure under S. 21 of the Malabar Tenancy Act, 1929, now, since the institution of this appeal, replaced by S. 6 of the Kerala Agrarian Relations Act, 1960 (which confers fixity of tenants, a kanomdar being by definition a tenant) or whether it is only a possessory mortgage entitling the plaintiffs to the decree for redemption which they claimed. THE courts below have, on the concurrent finding that the transaction is a mortgage, decreed the plaintiffs' suit, and the 8th defendant has come up with this second appeal.

(2.) ALTHOUGH the law governing the matter at the time of the suit was the Malabar Tenancy Act, both sides are agreed that the matter has now to be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of the Kerala Agrarian relations Act which I shall hereafter call the Act. This, it seems to me, is something that cannot admit of dispute.

(3.) AS I have already said, a kanamdar is a tenant, and s. 6 confers on him fixity of tenure and prohibits resumption of his holding except as provided in the Act. What those provisions for resumption are we need not stop to consider, for, the plaintiffs have no case that they are - entitled to the decree they have obtained if indeed the transfer in question is a kanam.