The main legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between possessory mortgages and kanoms under Act 1 of 1964, and the interpretation of S.84 of the same Act in relation to the validity of the plaintiff's title.

Headnote:
Redemption - Suit Property - Act 1 of 1964 - S. A. No. 1212/68 and S. A. No. 62/69 - S.84 of Act 1 of 1964 - Ext. P3, P4, and P5 mortgages - Transposition of plaintiff - Possessory mortgage - Kanom - S.2(22) of Act 1 of 1964
Fact of the Case:

The suit involved a redemption of mortgages on a property originally belonging to the Illom of the 1st defendant. The plaintiff purchased the equity of redemption from the 1st defendant and filed a suit for redemption of the mortgages. The contesting defendants claimed fixity of tenure under Act 1 of 1964 and argued that the plaintiff's purchase was violative of S.84 of Act 1 of 1964.
Finding of the Court:

The trial court non-suited the plaintiff, holding that the plaintiff's title was invalid due to a violation of S.84 of Act 1 of 1964. The lower appellate court allowed the transposition of the 1st defendant as an additional 2nd plaintiff and granted a decree in her favor.
Issues: The main issues were the nature of the transactions (whether possessory mortgages or kanoms) and the validity of the plaintiff's title under S.84 of Act 1 of 1964.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the transactions were possessory mortgages, not kanoms, as they were intended to secure advances rather than for the enjoyment of the property by the transferee. The court also found that the plaintiff's title was valid, and the transposition of the 1st defendant as an additional 2nd plaintiff was justified.
Final Decision: The decision of the lower court was confirmed, and S. A. 62/1969 was dismissed without costs, while S. A. 1212/1968 was dismissed with costs.

Judgment :-

1. These two appeals arise out of a suit for redemption. S. A. No. 1212/68 is by defendants 4 to 6 and 8 to 10 while S. A. No. 62/69 is by the 1st plaintiff.

2. The suit property which originally belonged to the Illom of the 1st defendant was outstanding on Otti in favour of one Krishnan. While so, the father of the 1st defendant executed Ext. P3 tasemanbm[mcw (superior Mortgage) in favour of one Raman Pillai, the predecessor-in-interest of defendants 3 to 14, authorising the mortgagee to redeem the prior mortgage. It is common case that the mortgagee Raman Pillai redeemed the prior mortgage and reduced the property to his possession. Ext. P3 was followed by two 'purakkadam' deeds' Exts. P4 and P5, whereby the Illom borrowed further amounts from Raman Pillai charging the suit property. Under Ext. P8 udampady in the Illom the 1st defendant obtained the equity of redemption of the suit property. The 1st plaintiff purchased that right from the 1st defendant as per Ext. P6 and instituted the present suit for redemption of Exts. P3, P4 and P5 mortgages. The contesting defendants claimed fixity of tenure under the relevant provisions of Act 1 of 1964, and contended further that Ext. P6 being violative of S.84 of Act 1 of 1964 cannot confer any title on the plaintiff with respect to the equity of redemption. During the course of the trial the 1st defendant filed a petition as I. A. 958/66 to get herself transposed as additional 2nd plaintiff. The trial court dismissed that petition on 6101966.

3. The trial court, while holding that the suit transactions are only redeemable mortgages, non-suited the plaintiff on the short ground that Ext. P6 to which he traces his title is invalid in so far as it contravenes the provisions of S.84 of Act 1 of 1964. Against that decision the plaintiff and the 1st defendant went in appeal as A. S.21/1967 and A. S.75/1967 respectively. The lower appellate court allowed the prayer of the 1st defendant for transposition as additional 2nd plaintiff and gave a preliminary decree for redemption in favour of the additional 2nd plaintiff.

4. S. A. No. 62/1969 preferred by the 1st plaintiff was not pressed before us.

5. The first ground urged by the appellants in S.A.1212/1968 is that the transactions covered by Exts. P3, P4 and P5 are kanoms as defined in S.2(22) of Act 1 of 1964. The definition of kanom consists of two parts; and it is admitted by the appellants that Exts. P3 to P5 do not come under sub-clause (a) of clause (22) and that they rely only on sub-clause (b). S.2(22) (b) so far as it is relevant for the purposes of this appeal may be read as follows: "(22). 'kanam' means

the transfer for consideration in money or kind or in both by a person of an interest in specific immovable property to another person for the latter's enjoyment, whether described in the document evidencing the transaction as Otti, karipanayam, panayam, pattapanayanu nerpanayam or by any other name, and which has the incidents specified in sub-clause (a) (i) and (a) (ii) and also one or more of the following incidents:

(A) renewal on the expiry of any specified period;

(B) payment of michavaram;

Provided that kanam or any other demise governed by the Kanam Tenancy Act, 1955 shall not be deemed to be a kanam for the purposes of this clause.

It is not disputed that to attract the provision there must be the transfer of an interest in an immovable property to another person for the latter's enjoyment; to be more precise the purpose of the transfer must be the enjoyment of the property by the transferee. If, on the other hand, the object of the transfer is to constitute the concerned property a security for the consideration received by the transferor the resulting transaction is only a possessory mortgage, and the subsequent possession or enjoyment of the property by the transferee is only an incident of the transaction and not its purpose. The question to be considered is whether Exts. P3, P4 and P

Click Here to Read the rest of this document