1. The only question arising for decision in this Second Appeal is whether Ext A-1, Kaichit, dated November 21, 1916 evidences a mortgage as contended for the respondents, who were plaintiffs 2 and 3 in the suit or a kanam as contended for the appellant, who was the 6th defendant. The two courts have answered this against the appellant.

2. Ext. A-1 was executed by Andi and Kottan who were the predecessors-in-interest of the appellant and may be referred to as the transferees, in favour of a member of the respondents' family which held the suit properties on verumpattom under a Devaswom to which they appertained on jenmom. Ext. A-1 purports to be the counter-part of a Karipanayam deed, executed on the same day in favour of the transferees. It recited a prior lease from the respondents' family to the transferees, with a premium of Rs. 200/- and an annual rent of 641 paras of paddy and Rs. 10, and further stated that, in order to pay renewal fees to the Devaswom, the respondents' family borrowed on the same day a sum of Rs. 400/- from the transferees; it provided that the transferees shall he in possession of the properties on karipanayam for ten years, for the 'karipanayam