The main legal point established in the judgment is that the determination of a tenant's rights, including the right of permanent occupancy, must depend solely on the terms of the contract as embodied in the document, and the provisions of the relevant Act must be applied in accordance with the specific terms of the contract.

1. This Second Appeal arises out of a suit for redemption. The properties involved in the suit belonged to a non-Brahmin jenmi family known by the name of Puthiyakkal Kovilagam and were demised under a kanam deed Ext. D dated 24.5.1075. Ext. D was replaced by the subsequent document Ext. E executed on 27.4.1080. The contesting defendants are in possession of the properties on the strength of Ext. E. The 1st plaintiff on whom the rights of the Kovilagam over these properties have ultimately become vested, executed the mortgage deed Ext. F dated 13.10.1115 in favour of the 2nd defendant authorising him to redeem Ext. E and recover possession of the properties together with the arrears of michavaram. Accordingly the present suit for redemption was filed. The main defence set up by the contesting defendants is that under Exts. D and E an irredeemable kanom coming within the scope of the Travancore Jenmi and Kudiyan Act was created and that therefore the suit for redemption is not maintainable. This contention was upheld by the trial court which dismissed the suit. On appeal by the 2nd plaintiff, the lower appellate court came to the conclusion that the right of permanent occupancy conferred on the kudiyan by S. 5 of the Jenmi and Kudiyan Act cannot be availed of by the kanamdars under Exts. D and E and that the question whether the right of permanent occupancy was intended to be conferred on these tenants has to be gathered from the terms of the document. On a consideration of the terms embodied in Exts. D and E, the lower appellate Court came to the decision that no right of permanent occupancy was intended to be conferred on the tenants and that under Exts. D and E the jenmi retained the right of redemption and thus reversed the trial court's decree dismissing the suit. The 3rd defendant has come up in second appeal, challenging the correctness of the construction put upon Exts. D and E by the lower appellate court.

2. From the scheme of the Travancore Jenmi and Kudiyan Act of the year 1071 (Act V of 1071) it is clear that the statutory right of permanent occupancy was conferred on the kudiyans who were already in possession of jenmom lands under a kanom demise as defined in the Act. By S. 42 of the Act a class of kanam demises falling under this category have been expressly excluded from the scope of the Act. That section runs as follows:

"Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing, the provisions of this Regulation shall not apply to any kanapattom executed since the 25th day of Karkatagam 1042, which expressly provided for redemption".

This section was enacted to give effect to the idea contained in Cl. 8 of the Royal Proclamation dated 25.12.1042 where it was stated that in the case of a demise of jenmom land subsequent to that date the right of redemption should be expressly provided for in the document if it is the intention of the jenmi to have such a right reserved with him. The rights thus expressly reserved in the kanam documents executed after the 25th day of Karkatagam 1042 have accordingly been protected and preserved by S. 42 of the jenmi and Kudiyan Act. S. 43 of the Act is intended to regulate the rights of the landlord and the tenant in respect of fresh demises made subsequent to the date of the Act. The section is in the following terms:

"In contracts relating to jenmom lands entered into for the first time after this Regulation comes into force, the question whether the tenancy is terminable or otherwise, shall be determined according to the intention of the parties as gathered from the terms of the contract".

It is thus obvious that the parties to such contracts cannot ignore the terms of the contract and rely upon the other provisions of the Act for the purpose of determining the question as to whether the tenant holding the property under the contract of demise has acquired a permanent occupancy right. The decision of that question must depend solely on the terms of the contract as embodie