1. The only question in this case is whether the tenancy right held by the respondent prior to Ex. D1 merged in it, when he took that document on 10th February 1959 The trial court held that there was merger; but the lower appellate court held that there was no merger.

2. Ex. D1 was a mortgage (nadappupanayam) for Rs. 325/-executed by the appellant to the respondent. The document recites that the property was already outstanding with the respondent on a lease; and that the same is put in the possession of the respondent under the mortgage. It recites further that the respondent will appropriate the income of the property towards the interest of the mortgage money; and that he should properly look after the property and pay the Government revenue. The recital continues that the respondent is entitled to be so in possession until the mortgage money is paid; and that at some proper time the mortgagor will satisfy the mortgage money and obtain release of the right.

3. The question whether two rights, which coalesced in the hands of the same person, have merged, the smaller in the larger, the inferior in the superior, is a question of the intention of the party in whose hands