1. A Full Bench of this court in Kriyhnan Nair v. Sivaraman Namboodiri (1967 KLT. 78) has exhaustively dealt with the tests that may normally be adopted to find out whether the transaction which is contended to be a lease and not a mortgage is in fact one such. Dealing with this and particularly with a transaction which may be a composite transaction embodying both the characteristics of a lease and mortgage, the Full Bench said

"If it is at least in part a lease, no matter how small a part; the person holding under it would be a tenant entitled to fixity under S.13 so that redemption of the part which is a mortgage, no matter how predominant a part, would not entitle the Mortgagor to obtain possession which is what a plaintiff suing for redemption normally wants. Therefore, the proper question to be asked in such cases is whether the transaction is, to any extent, a lease. If it is then by reason of the fixity given by S.13 of the Act the transferor cannot recover possession even if the transaction be at the same time a mortgage which be is entitled to redeem. The question would not be whether the transaction is predominantly a lease or predominantly a mortgage but whet