1. This appeal raises only one question and that relates to the construction of the two suit documents, namely, Exts. Al and B1. The plaintiffs, who are the appellants before me, claimed that those documents created a possessory mortgage, whereas the defendant-respondents contended that the documents were kanom kuzhikanom leases. The lower court agreed with the contention of the defendants and dismissed the suit and the plaintiffs appeal.

2. Ext. Al bears the date 26th March and Ext. B1 27th March, 1900. Both the documents are between the same parties and appear to have been registered on the same date. Ext. Al is styled kanom and the consideration for the document is Rs. 5,000. The document recites that the transaction has been entered into to pay off a decree debt against the tarwad of the executants. In the operative portion of the document there is a further recital that the parambas with the improvements and farm-houses thereon have been given possession of for a term of 24 years in "kettiadakamkanom". The transferees have been directed to pay the Government revenue and to appropriate the income from the properties towards interest of the kanom amount. Then there is