The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of interpreting the intention of the parties in documents, considering legal references, and subsequent dealings to determine the nature of the transaction.

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 a further recital regarding the number of trees existing on the properties and the recital continues that if the transferees plant further kuzhikoors the transferors will pay their value at the time of surrender by the transferees.

3. Ext. B1 is also styled a kanom document, the kanom amount advanced under the document being Rs. 600/- and the properties covered by it being the same as those in Ext. Al. The document recites that the properties have already been given in kanom and kuzhikanom right the previous day. In this document also the necessity for taking the kanom amount has been recited as the payment of the decree debt already mentioned. In the operative portion of this document it is further recited that the properties are given in kanom right and the transferees are authorised to appropriate whatever interest they may get from the income of the properties after adjusting the interest on the amount advanced on the previous day and both the documents are directed to be redeemed together. It may be mentioned in this connection that the properties covered by these documents are parambas having an extent of 18 acres.

4. If, both the documents, namely Ext. Al and B1, are to be construed together and the intention of the parties to be gathered from both of them, it is absolutely clear that the parties contemplated the creation of a kanom kuzhikanom tenure and did not intend to create a possessory mortgage. But Mr. Surianarayana Iyer, the appellants' learned advocate, contends that Ext. Al should be interpreted on the basis of the recitals contained therein and not with reference to the recitals in a subsequent document. He further contends that if this course is adopted it will have to be held that Ext. Al is only a usufructuary mortgage. In this connection, he invites my attention to the meaning of the term "kettiadakamkanom" given in the Glossary of Terms in Sundara Aiyar's Malabar & Aliyasantana Law, which is as follows:

"Kettiadakamkanom - Usufructuary mortgage in which rent is absorbed by interest but with no pre-emption."

The learned counsel further brings to my notice the meaning of the aforesaid term given in the Malayalam-English Dictionary by Tobias Zacharias as usufructuary mortgage. It is well settled that in the construction of such documents it is the intention of the parties to the documents that has to be gathered. The term "kettiadaki" means "took possession" as given in the same dictionary. So that, to construe the term "kettiadakamkanom" as a usufructuary mortgage simpliciter without any elements of a lease or kanom is not justified. It is well-known that every kanom has some elements of the usufructuary mortgage also but the element of the lease predominates. Therefore, I am not inclined to accept the contention that, since the exp