1. The short question arising for decision in this second appeal is, whether the otti evidenced by Ext. B5 dated March 25, 1943, sought to be redeemed, is really a kanam under which the defendants are entitled to fixity of tenure, or not. The first court has held that it is not a kanam, there being no provision in it for the payment of michavaram so as to satisfy the definition in the Malabar Tenancy Act, 1929, and rejected the defendants' claim for fixity of tenure; on appeal the Subordinate Judge has held, that the stipulation in Ext. B5 for the payment of revenue to Government is tantamount to a provision for the payment of michavaram, but concurred with the trial court in rejecting the claim for fixity of tenure by applying S.21 of the Malabar Tenancy Act as the kanartham exceeded 40 per cent of the jenmi's interests. The aforesaid Act having been repealed by the Kerala Agrarian Relations Act, 1960 (Act IV of 1961), the ground relied on by the Subordinate Judge can no longer avail the plaintiffs. Nevertheless, Ext. B5, has to satisfy the definition of kanam in the later enactment. It is, therefore necessary to consider whether the stipulation in Ext. B5 that the fir