(1.) The only question in this revision is whether the suit transaction is a kanom within the meaning of the Malabar Tenancy Act. A kanom is defined in Section 3 (1), Malabar Tenancy Act as follows;
(2.) Exhibit D-1 is a registration copy of the kanom-kuzhikanom deed by C. Gopalan and another to M. P. Mannan and another. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the document is not a kanom as it consists of the following two terms: (1) that in regard to Rs. 300 out of the advance of a sum of Rs. 1,000 the owner agreed to pay interest at 7 1/2 per cent. per annum; and (2) that the kanomdar is given the right to bring the property to sale in case the amount is not paid within the time prescribed. As it contains the aforesaid two terms which are not included in the definition of a kanom, it is argued that the transaction is not a kanom but a mortgage and therefore Act XVII [17] of 1946 has no application. In Sundara Aiyar's Malabar Law (1) the nature of kanom tenure has been succinctly described as follows:
(3.) The parties described the document as kanom-kuzhikanom -deed. The petitioner in the plaint gave the terms of the kanom deed and described the respondent as a kanomdar. The document contains all the material terms that are generally found in a kanom deed. The fact that the parties agreed to one or more terms which are not ordinarily found in the kanom deed will not affect the question to be decided. It, therefore, follows that the respondent is the tenant within the meaning of Act XVII [17] of 1946 and the lower Court was right in staying the suit under that Act. This revision petition is dismissed with costs.