KUPPUNNI Vs. PARASU PATTER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The document on which this suit was brought is styled a melkanom deed. It has been held by the lower Courts to be invalid for non compliance with the rules as to attestation contained in Section 59 of the Transfer of Property Act.

(2.) Mr. Ananthakrishna Iyer for appellant; conceded that a kanom is a mortgage and that the holder of the suit document bad the prospective rights of a kanomdar if he redeemed the prior kanom, and argued that he has only the present rights of a lessee.

(3.) He contended further that his client had no immediate rights as mortgagee, as the sum of Rs. 575 was paid only as a premium for being given an interest to redeem the kanom, and that Section 91 of the Transfer of Property Act contemplates such interests being vested in other persons besides the mortgagor and the mortgagee. I find it expressly stated in the document that it is a conveyance of melkanom rights, that is, the rights of a second kanomdar.