1. The question is whether Ext. P5 described as an'Ottikuzhikanam' is a redeemable mortgage or a lease. The trial court held that it was a mortgage and granted a decree for redemption of plaint item No. 1. In appeal filed by the 2nd defendant, the lower appellate court held that the plaintiff had not established his tile to the property and so the decision of the trial court was reversed and the suit was dismissed. The appellate court did not find on the question whether Ext. P5 was a mortgage or a lease. In the second appeal which was heard by a learned single judge of this Court, title was found in favour of the plaintiff but the suit was dismissed on the ground that the transaction evidenced by Ext. P5 was a lease. Leave for appeal was granted by the judge and when the appeal by the plaintiff came up before a Division Bench, the correctness of the view taken by the learned single judge that the payment of land revenue may well be treated as "other consideration" within the meaning of that term in S.2 (57) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, for short, the Act, was doubted in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Kunhamina Umma v. Paru Amma 1971 KLT 163 and i