Cherumanalil Lakshmi and Ors. v. Mulivil Kunninamkandy Narayani and Ors.
Badlawat, J. The question in this appeal is whether Ex.
A-1 dated March 26, 1900 and Ex. B-1 dated March 27, 1900 were
kanam-kuzhikanam transactions, or whether they created usu
fructuary mortgages. The appellants sued for redemption and
recovery of the suit lands alleging that Exs. A-1 and B-1 created
w;ufructuary mortgages. The respondents claimed that they H
were kanam-kuzhikanamdars and entitled to fixity of tenure under
s. 21 read withs. 3 (15) of the Malabar Tenancy Act, 1929 (Madras
Act 14 of 1930). The trial Court upheld the respondents' conkn-
,-
-
-
LAKSHMI v. NARAYAN! (Bachawat, l.) 315
tion and dismissed the suit. Qn appeal, the Kerala High Court
affirmed this decree. The appellants now 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. It is
common case before us that the appeal must be disposed of in
accordance with the provisions of Act 1 of 1964. In this appeal,
the respondents claim that they are the holders of kanam-kuzhi
kanam within the meaning of s. 2(23) of this Act.
Section 13 of Act 1 of 1964 gives to every tenant fixity of tenure
in respect of his holding and forbids resumption of the holding
except as provided in ss. 14 to 22. Section 2 is the definition
section. By s. 2(57), a tenant means any person who has paid
or has .agreed to pay rent or other consideration for his being allow
ed by another to possess and enjoy the land of the latter and in
cludes inter alia a kanam-kuzhikanamdar. Section 2(23) reads :
"kanam-kuzhikanam" means and includes a transfer
by a landlord to another person of garden lands or of
other lands or of both, with the fruit-bearing trees,
if any standing thereon at the time of the transfer, for the
enjoyment of those trees and. for the purpose of plant
ing such fruit-bearing trees thereon, the incidents of
which transfer .include
(a) a right in the transferee to hold the said lands
liable for the consideration paid by him or due to him;
which consideration is called 'kanartham'; and
(b) the liability of the transferor to pay to the trans
feree interest on the kanartham unless otherwise agreed
to by the parties ;
Provided that a usufructuary mortgage as de
fined in the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (Cen
tral Act 4 of 1882), shall not be deemed to be a kanam
kuzhikanam ;"
Exhibits A-1 and B-1 demised the suit lands together with
the fruit-bearing coconut, arecanut and jack trees standing there
on for a period of 24 years. The transfer was for the enjoyment
of the lands with the standing trees and for the purpose of plant
ing fruit-bearing trees thereon. The kanam amount or the kanar
tham under Ex. A-I was Rs. 5,000/- and under Ex. B-1 was
Rs. 600/-. The transferees were entitled to appropiiate the income
of the lands in lieu of interest on the kanam amounts and to hold
the lands even after the expiry of 24 years until payment of the
kanam amounts and the value of the trees planted by them. Thus,
all the conditions of a kanam-kuzhikanam mentioned in the main
part of s. 2(23) were satisfied. Nevertheless, in view of the proviso
M15Sup.Cl/66-7
316 SUPllBME OOUkT l.EPOllTS (1967] l S.C.R.
to s. 2(23), the transactions would not be kanam-kuzhikanam if
it is shown that they were by way of usufructuary mortgages as
defined in s. 58( d) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. A kanam
kuzhikanam and a usufructuary mortgage have many common fea
tures. 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 repay
ment of the money. In spite of their close resemblance, the essen
tial distinction between the two types of transactions must not
be overlooked. A kanam-kuzhikanam is a lease, and is, there
fore, a transfer of a right to enjoy the property. A mortgage is
a transfer of an interest in the ·property for securing the repay
ment of a debt.. The purpose of one is to enable enjoyment of the
property by the transferee, that of the other is to secure the debt.
On the question whether a transaction is a kanam-kuzhikanam
or a usufructuary mortgage, the name given to it by the parties
is a relevant, t)lough not always a decisive, consideration. If
the parties described the transaction to be a kanam-kuzhikanam
it is a valuable indication that they intended it to be such and not
a usufructuary mortgage. If the document purports to be a
mortgage, s. 12 of the Act allows the parties to prove that it is,
in substance, a kanam-kuzhikanam or other lease. But if the
document purports to be or is, on its true construction, a kanam
kuzhikanam or other lease, s. 12 has no application and full
effect must be given to the document according to its tenor.
Both Exs. A-1 and B-1 were styled kanam deeds. Exhibit
A-1 stated that the demise was in Kettiyadakkam kanam right.
"Kottiadaki" means "took possession". The expression "ketti
yadakkam kanam" may mean a usufructuary mortgage, but
this is not its necessary or invariable meaning. Exhibit B-1 ex
plained Ex. A-1. Exhibit B-1 explieitly stated that the demises
under Ex. A-1 and B-1 were in kanam-kuzhikanam right. Exhi
bits A-I and B-1 read together show that both the transactions
were kanam-kuzhikanam. The subsequent documents, Exs. B-2,
B-5, B-8, B-9, and B-10 executed between 1921 and 1944 all re
cited that Exs A-1 and B-1 were kanam-kuzhikanam transactions.
'Exhibits A-I and B-1 did not contain any recital showing that
they created security for repayment of a debt. Significantly, the
parties did not describe the transactions to be a mortgage, otti,
panayam or a kyvasam panayam. Instead, they described the
transactions as kanam-kuzhikanam and the amounts paid to the
transferees as k~artham. Exhibits A-I and B-1 did not purport
to be and were not transactions for securing debts. We agree
with the Courts below that the transactions were kanam
lcuzhikanam and were not usufructuary mortgages.
In the resuh, the appeal is dismissed with costs.
Y.P.S. A.ooeal dismissed.
1>
'