The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, particularly in relation to the definition of Kanom, tenant, and michavaram. The court's decision was influenced by the analysis of the transaction in light of these legal provisions.

1. This appeal is by the legal representatives of the 2nd defendant in a suit for redemption of a moiety of a Kanom.

2. Ext. B6 is a Kanom-Kuzhikanom deed and Ext. Al its counter-part. They are of date December 1, 1941. The transaction thereunder is a composite one, a Kanom in respect of taks 1 to 3 of item 1 (which constitute the suit properties) and a Kanom-Kuzhikanom in respect of the 4th tak of item 1 and item 2 therein (which are not involved in this suit). The Kanomdars are defendants 1 and 2. In partition under Ext. A3 the rights under Ext. B6 have been divided equally between them; but the properties as such are not divided. The 2nd defendant, now represented by the appellants, had thus an undivided moiety in the suit properties. The original plaintiff was an assignee of the jenmi who granted Ext. B6. On her death, her interests devolved on plaintiffs 2 to 6 who assigned the same to the 7th plaintiff Company. The suit is for redemption of the Kanom on the suit properties. Subsequent to the institution of the suit defendants 3 to 9 being the legal representatives of the 1st defendant have surrendered their moiety in the suit Kanom to plaintiffs 2 to 6 (vide Ext. All) and thereafter the suit is prosecuted in regard to the moiety of the Kanom that belonged to the 2nd defendant.

The 2nd defendant contended, and that contention is continued by the appellants, that the transaction evidenced by Exts. B6 and Al is really one of tenancy entitling the defendants to fixity of tenure.

The Munsiff accepted the defence and dismissed the suit; but, on appeal by the plaintiffs, the Additional District Judge has reversed him. Hence this second appeal.

3. The primary contention of the appellants is that the transaction under Ext. B6 is a Kanom amounting to a tenancy entitling them to immunity from eviction. It is conceded that the rights and liabilities have now to be judged under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963. S.132 (1) (a) of the Act provides so. It then follows that to earn immunity from eviction it is not enough if the transaction is styled a Kanom in the concerned instruments: it must satisfy the incidents of a Kanom as defined in Clause (22) of S.2 of the Act (I of 1964). That Clause reads thus:

" (22) 'kanam' means the transfer for consideration, in money or in kind or in both, by a landlord of an interest in specific immovable property to another person for the latter's enjoyment, whether described in the document evidencing the transaction as kanam or kana-pattam, the incidents of which transfer include

(a)

(b) ; and

(c) payment of michavaram or customary dues, or renewal on the expiry of any specified period,... It (The rest of the definition is irrelevant as regards the suit properties which are situate in Malabar

area of the State).

To be a Kanom within the above definition, the transaction should involve payment of michavaram or customary dues or renewal on the expiry of a specified period. Admittedly there is no provision for renewal or for payment of customary "dues in the suit transaction. The question then is if there a provision for payment of michavaram.

4. The material recitals in Ext. A 1, the counter deed, executed by the defendants 1 and 2 identical are the contents in Ext. B-6 run thus:

[We will pay the kanom (amount) of Rs.14CO charged on taks 1 to 3 of of item No.1 (the suit properties)... to the 7 persons the aforesaid woman Narayani and others or to their representatives ... and redeem (them) and hold taks 1 to 3 of item No.1 as kanom and tak 4 and item No. 2 (these are not involved in this suit) as kanom-kuzhikanom, paying the land revenue for the properties and enjoy them for interest on the kanom, and after the term of 12 years when the kanom of Rs. 2000 charged on taks 1 to 3 of item No.1 is offered we shall receive and surrender the properties with basic documents by a registered release at our cost. It is resolved that as taks 1 to 3 of the paddy flat being item No.1 of the schedule are good paddy