The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the nature of the transaction, emphasizing the recital authorizing the mortgagee to plant trees and make improvements, and its influence on determining the transaction as an usufructuary mortgage under the Malabar Tenancy Act.

1. The plaintiff, whose suit for redemption of a transaction, which according to him, is an usufructuary mortgage, has been dismissed by both the subordinate courts, is the appellant in this second appeal.

2. According to the plaintiff, the suit properties were usufructuarily mortgaged by one Kuttiammad and others on behalf of their tarwad on 25-5-1907 under Ext. Al in favour of one Ibrayin for a sum of Rs. 400/-. The term of the mortgage is a period of 60 years and the tarwad, which had only a mulgani right, had usufructuarily mortgaged that right. It is the case of the plaintiff that ultimately, Ibrayin's rights have devolved on the first defendant. In turn, the plaintiff also stated that the rights owned as mortgagors by the tarwad of Kuttiammad, have also devolved on the plaintiff and he has also been empowered, by the transaction in his favour, to redeem the usufructuary mortgage evidenced by Ext. Al. He also claimed relief under Madras Act IV/1938 as amended by Act XXIII/1948.

3. The first defendant, who was the main contesting defendant, disputed the right of the plaintiff to redeem the suit transaction on several grounds. He contended that the assignors of the plaintiff had no right to transfer the equity of redemption regarding the suit properties. He also took several other pleas regarding his claim for value of improvements. But the most important contention raised by him was on the basis that the suit transaction is not an usufructuary mortgage, but a 'kanom-kuzhikanom' within the meaning of that expression under S.3 (15) of the Malabar Tenancy Act and in consequence, he claimed fixity of tenure by virtue of the provisions of S.21 of the Malabar Tenancy Act.

4. The learned District Munsiff came to the conclusion that the plaintiff has not obtained the entire rights in the equity of redemption and, that the equity of redemption, if at all, has only been obtained by the plaintiff jointly, along with the 3rd defendant and therefore, a suit by one of the co-owners of the equity of redemption was not maintainable. After considering this question, the learned District Munsiff considered the question as to the nature of the transaction evidenced by Ext. Al. The learned District Munsiff took into consideration the conduct of the parties as evidenced by the recitals in Ext. A2 and also the evidence of the plaintiff himself regarding the nature of this transaction. According to the trial court, there are clear recitals in the assignment-deed in favour of the plaintiff namely, Ext. A2 that the transaction evidenced by Ext. Al is a 'kanom-kuzhikanom' document. Then having regard to the definition of the term 'kanom-kuzhikanom as defined in S.3 (15) of the Malabar Tenancy Act and also having regard to some of the recitals in Ext. Al itself, the trial court was of the view that the suit document is a kanom-kuzhikanom document coming within the meaning of that expression, as defined in the "Malabar Tenancy Act. The main recital in Ext. Al which appears to have influenced the trial court in coming to this conclusion, on the basis of the recitals in the document itself that it is a kanom-kuzhikanom document, is the recital authorising the mortgagee to plant trees and make improvements.

5. After recording a finding that the transaction evidenced by Ext. Al is a kanom-kuzhikanom document, the trial court also goes into the question regarding the claim for value of improvements made by the defendants. On this point, the learned District Munsiff came to the conclusion that if the plaintiff is otherwise entitled to redeem the suit properties, the first defendant will be entitled to get a sum of Rs. 2,080/- and the second defendant will be entitled to get a sum of Rs. 200/- as by way of value for improvements. But ultimately, in view of the findings recorded on the question of the maintainability of the suit by the plaintiff himself, and also in view of his decision that the document being a kanom¬kuzhikanom document which result