1. These two appeals arise from the same suit that was for redemption of a Melpanayam.

2. The material question for decision is the real nature of the suit transaction, whether it amounts to a kanam or a possessory mortgage. The learned Munsiff held that the transaction amounted to a lease, and not to mortgage. But the learned Subordinate Judge on appeal held the contrary. In S. A. No. 118 of 1957 the learned counsel for the defendants 1 and 2, who are the appellants therein, is canvassing the correctness of the latter finding.

3. There is a provision in the suit transaction (Ext. A2) for payment of purappad, representing the residual rent after appropriation of the interest on the mortgage amount from the income of the property, and as such the contention is advanced that the requirements of clause (18) of S.2 of the Kerala Agrarian Relations Act (IV of 1961) are satisfied, the property involved being situate in Malabar.

4. It is pertinent to note that Ext. A2 provides for a personal liability for the amount advanced under the document, and also for a sale of the demised property to enforce the same. These two provisions are totally inconsistent with a kanam. As observed