1. This is an appeal by the 2nd defendant from a decree passed by a learned single judge in second appeal in a suit for redemption of a melotti and kuzhikanam evidenced by Ext, PI.

2. Since the 2nd defendant among other things contended in the appeal that he is a deemed tenant coming within the ambit of S.4A of Act 1 of 1964 as amended by Act 35 of 1969 and as its constitutional validity was challenged by the plaintiff, the case was referred to a Bench of three judges. When the case was argued before that Bench, the plaintiff contended that the tenure of the land involved in the case is pandarapattom in the Travancore area of the State and so S.4A in its application to that land cannot have the protection of Art.31A of the Constitution in view of the decision of a Bench of three judges in Govindaru Nambooripad. State 1962 KLT 913. As considerable doubt was entertained on the question whether pandarapattom land in the Travancore area of the State is 'estate' within the meaning of Art.31A (2) (a) that question was referred to a Bench of five judges. That Bench answered the question by saying that pandarapattom land in the Travancore area of the State is 'estate' within the definition of the term in Art.31A (2) (a). The appeal was thereafter posted for argument before us.

3. The plaint property belonged to one Kunchena Narayanan. He gave the property on Otti and kuzhikanam in 1060 under Ext. Dl to Thomas Fernandez, the husband of 1st defendant and father of defendants 2 to 10. There was a partition of the assets of Kunchena Narayanan in 1069 among his seshakars and his children. The seshakars who got the plaint property under, the partition executed a melotti and kuzhikanam in 1079 (Ext. PI) in favour of Perumal Potha directing her to redeem Ext. Dl. She redeemed Ext, Dl and reduced the property to her possession. In 1097 the heirs of the executee under Ext. P1, transferred the rights under the document to Thomas Fernandez. The 11th defendant who got the plaint property under a partition among the seshakars of Kunchena Narayanan, sold it to.the plaintiff under Ext. P3. The plaintiff instituted the suit to redeem Ext. P1.

4. The trial court dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiff did not prove his title to the plaint property. The plaintiff filed an appeal from the decree which was allowed, and the suit decreed. The second appeal filed against that decree by the 2nd defendant was dismissed.

The contentions of the 2nd defendant in the second appeal that Thomas Fernandez who took Ext. P2 was not the husband of the 1st defendant and the father of defendants 2 to 10 who took Ext. Dl, and that the 11th defendant did not get title to the property were over-ruled by the learned single judge, and he agreed with the findings of the court below on these questions. Since the findings are concurrent and not vitiated by any error of law, we accept them and repel these contentions of the appellant.

5. The appellant, however, contended that Ext. P1 under which he holds the property evidences an Otti kuzhikanam coming within the meaning of S.2 (39A) of Act 1 of 1964 as amended by Act 35 of 1969; or in the alternative, that he is a deemed tenant falling within the ambit of S.4A(1) of Act 1 of 1964 as amended by Act 35 of 1969, and therefore, the suit for redemption of Ext. P1 must be dismissed.

It is necessary to read S.2 (39A) to understand the first contention of the appellant.

"In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,

'Ottikuzhikanam' means a transfer for consideration by a person to another of any land other than nilam for the enjoyment of that land and for the purpose of making improvements thereon, but shall not include a mortgage within the meaning of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882;"

Ext. P1, as already stated, is styled as a melotti and kuzhikanam. The operative part of the document reads:

In Mathai v. Narayanan Unnithan 1961 KLT.13 a learned single judge said that the literal meaning of 'kuzhikanam' is 'kanom'