The statutory tenancy under the Cochin Verumpattomdars Act converted the lease into a 'statutory tenancy' even during the period under the lease, which is continued after the period had expired, and no new lease is created. The security for the rent being paid cannot be limited to the period under the lease.

1. The plaintiff is the appellant in both the appeals, and had, on 10-6-1121, demised the plaint A schedule items for a year to the first defendant. The lease, Ext. A, is a registered deed; and thereunder the lessee had stipulated an annual pattom of 190 paras of paddy, payable in Kanni and Makaram. The lessee had further offered the plaint B schedule property, which belongs to the lessee, as security for the due payment of the pattom. This part of Ext. A is important, and the following is the relevant extract from the translation furnished to us by the parties' learned advocates:

11 ..............the pattom is kept in arrears, the same will be paid with interest according to law, and the properties will be kept and taken Care of by me without any damage to the survey stones and the boundaries. For the arrears of pattom and interest thereon and for the expenses of realisation of the same, if any incurred, the property held by me as per kanara document No. 1515/1101 and mortgaged by me to Krishnan Thampi for Rs. 2000/-, and described as item 5 in the schedule here below, is hypothecated subject to the said mortgage for Rs. 200/-, and you can, therefore, realise, the arrears of pattom and interest and other amounts by sale of whatever rights I have on the said item 5, from me personally, and from other properties belonging to me."

Though the lease was only for a year, the first defendant had, after the period, continued in possession, and had as well made default in payments of rent. The appellant, therefore, instituted O.S. No. 488 of 1124 to recover the pattom for 1123 and 24, and later instituted O.S. No. 264/1950 for the pattom of 1125. In both the suits the appellant has claimed enforcement of the charge, and has impleaded 12 persons, the 12th defendant being the subsequent mortgagee of the plaint B Schedule property. The aforesaid mortgagee has contended that he never knew about the lease before the institution of the suit, and the first defendant had in 1122 executed a usufructuary mortgage, whose consideration was advanced in order to discharge the hypothecation debt of 1120 as well as for the tarwad necessities of the 1st defendant. The 12th defendant has also put forward the claim that he had a prior charge by subrogation.

2. The trial court had found that the appellant had a prior charge to the extent of Rs. 300/-, for which alone stamp value was paid in the lease deed, and that the 12th defendant was not entitled to any priority by subrogation. As regards the price for paddy, the trial court found that the appellant could only get the price prevailing for the pattom payable during those months. Thereafter the appellant preferred A.S. No. 31/51 against the decree in the suit, which was to recover the pattom of 1125; and A.S. No. 32/51 against the decree which was in respect of the pattom for 1123 and 1124; and asked for a first charge on the 15 schedule property for arrears of all the years. The 12th defendant also filed a cross-objection in A.S. 32/51 praying disallowance of the charge given to the appellant; and, alternatively, for the priority in his own favour as regards the amount paid to discharge the hypothecation debt of 1120. The lower appellate court dismissed A.S. 31/51 and 32/51, and allowed the 12th defendant's cross-objection. The aforesaid judgment rests on the finding that, charging the B schedule property, would not endure beyond the period, for which the A schedule property had been leased by Ext. A. The lower appellate court has further held that the lease and the mortgage, being separate bargains, the latter would not be automatically renewed, because S.59 of the Transfer of Property Act required all mortgages exceeding Rs.100/- to be through registered documents. Two appeals were filed in the Travancore-Cochin High Court, S.A 512/54 being against the decree in A.S. 32/51 and in O.S. 488/1124, and S.A.511/54 against the decree in A.S. 31/51 and

O.S. 264/50. The learned judge thought that t