1. In Hussain Thangal v. Ali 1961 KLT. 1033, I had occasion to enumerate the tests generally adopted by the courts to tell a kanam from its twin brother a possessory mortgage, the essential difference between the two, of the one being a transfer for securing a debt and the other a transfer for enjoyment, being rarely an apparent feature and being largely a matter for inference. I then said that a provision in the deed effecting the transfer enabling the transferee to insist on repayment of the consideration advanced by him otherwise than as a condition for resumption of the property transferred (whether the provision be in the shape of a promise to repay by the transferor, or in the shape of a right of recovery by sale given to the transferee) was a sure means of telling a possessory mortgage from a kanam. Or words to that effect. For, it seemed to me that this emphasis on recovery at the transferee's will would put it beyond doubt that the advance was by way of loan and not by way of price or deposit refundable (whether by actual payment or adjustment) on re-transfer. And if that be so, the inference would follow that the transfer was for the purpose of securing the re