NEELAKANDA PILLAI Vs. SANKARAN PADMANABHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is the plaintiff. He filed a suit for redemption of Ext. D-2 executed by him in favour of respondents 1 and 2. The entire rights under Ext. D-2 have now become vested in the second respondent who apart from claiming value of improvements claimed the benefit under Act I of 1957 in the Courts below.

(2.) THE lower Courts found that the transaction under Ext. D-2 is a "holding" within the meaning of Act I of 1957 and directed the suit to be stayed though the lower appellate Court directed the trial Court to refix the value of improvements due to the respondents.

(3.) THE only point raised in the second appeal is whether the respondents are entitled to claim protection under the Land Reforms Act, 1963, Act I of 1964. This will depend upon the question whether the transaction evidenced by Ext. D-2 is a lease or mortgage.