The court established that the properties were irredeemable under the provisions of S. 5 of the Jenmi and Kudiyan Act, which deemed the kudiyan to be the owner of the land subject only to the payment of the jenmikaram.

1. First defendant is the second appellant.

2. The suit was for redemption of the plaint schedule properties held by the 1st defendant under Ext. A counter kanapattom deed. The 1st defendant contended that the properties are irredeemable. The courts below repelled this contention and allowed the suit.

3. The only question for decision in this second appeal is whether Ext. A is a redeemable mortgage.

4. In this connection it has to be ascertained whether the properties comprised in Ext. A are jenmom lands within the meaning of sub-s. (1) of S. 3 of the Jenmi and Kudiyan Act. The trial court held that they are jenmom lands while the lower appellate court took a contrary view.

5. The relevant provision of sub-s. (1) of S. 3 runs thus:

"Jenmom lands" means land other than Pandaravakai, Sree Pandaravakai, Kandukrishi or Sirkar Devaswom land, recognised as such in the Sirkar Accounts which is either entirely exempt from Government tax, or if assessed to public revenue, is subject to Rajabhogam only, and the occupancy right in which is created for a money consideration (Kanom) and is also subject to the payment of michavaram or customary dues and the payment of renewal fees...."

6. The plaint properties belonged to Puthiyakkal Kovilakam. Exts. II (a) and III are copies of classification register of the plaint properties and Exts. IV and V are copies of the Chitta. The tenure (CjU) of the properties as seen from these documents is "Puthiyakkal Thampan Vaka Kanom". It is therefore evident that they are not Pandaravakai, Sreepandaravakai, Kandukrishi or Sirkar Devaswom lands recognised as such in the Sirkar accounts. The pattom assessed on the properties is 27 fanams and the tax assessed to the public revenue is 3 Fs.1 Ch. 8 cash ie.,1/8th of the pattom. The properties are therefore assessed to Rajabhogam only. Ext. A shows that Adukkuvathau was paid under it. Ext. A was executed in renewal of a prior kanom Ext. I (a). It appears that Ext. I (a) itself was executed in renewal of a still prior kanom. Adukkuvathu was paid at the time of execution of Ext. I (a) also. Thus renewal fees were being paid at the renewals of the kanom. It is also apparent from Exts. A and I (a) that the occupancy right over the property was created for money consideration and is also subject to payment of michavaram. In these circumstances there can be no doubt that the plaint properties are jenmom lands held under a Kanapattom as defined in Jenmi and Kudiyan Act.

7. Reliance is however placed on the entries in Column 33 of Exts. II (A) and III which show that the registry-holder as per the Ayacut was one Kavumpurathu Kelan. On the basis of these entries it is argued that originally the properties could not have belonged to Puthiyakkal Kovilakam and therefore the lands in question could not be considered as jenmom lands. We do not think that this argument is well-founded. For purposes of the Jenmi Kudiyan Act the question whether a property is jenmom land or not has to be determined entirely with reference to the definition of the term "Jenmom land" given in the Act. Therefore if at the time of execution of the document in question the proprietorship to the properties vested in the Puthiyakkal Kovilakam and if the lands are jenmom lands as defined in the Act. ie. (lands other than Pandaravakai, Sreepandaravakai, Kandukrishi or Sirkar Devasom lands recognised as such in Sirkar accounts) which are either entirely exempt from Government tax or if assessed to public revenue is subject to Rajabhogam only and the occupancy right in which is created for money consideration (Kanom) and is also subject to payment of michavaram and customary dues and the payment of renewal fees" then it would be a document coming within the purview of the Act unless it is exempt by some other provisions thereof. But it is argued that in Ext. A the properties are stated to be 'Thettam' and that the full rights must therefore belong to the Ayacut registry-holder Kavumpurathu Kelan. It