1. The first defendant in a suit for redemption of mortgage, filed by respondents 1 to 4 herein, is the appellant. The suit was dismissed by the trial court. The Appellate Court reversed the judgment and decree of the trial court and the suit was decreed.

2. The plaint schedule property originally belonged to Narayanan Asari Krishnan Asari. He died in 1947. His rights devolved on his children Kolappan Asari and Sivasubramonian Asari. Both of them passed away before 1956. The plaintiffs are the children of Kolappan Asari. The second defendant is the daughter of Sivasubramonian Asari. In 1952, Kolappan Asari and Sivasubramonian Asari executed Ext.A1 ottikuzhikanam deed in favour of the first defendant for `500/-. Ext.A1 property consists of ten cents of land excluding six jack trees and a mango tree, which were retained in the possession of the mortgagors. The land was put in the possession of the mortgagee. The period stipulated in Ext.A1 was eight years. According to the plaintiffs, Ext.A1 is a possessory mortgage. Since the daughter of Sivasubramonian Asari (one of the co-mortgagors) was not willing to join as a plaintiff, she was arrayed as the second defendant. The plaintiffs contended that themselves and the second defendant are entitled to the equity of redemption.

3. The first defendant contended in his written statement that after the execution of Ext.A1, the mortgagee was put in possession of the trees as well, on receipt of Rs.100/- by the mortgagors. Thus the total consideration for the mortgage was Rs.600/-. The plaintiffs have no right to redeem. The first defendant contended that he constructed a building in the plaint schedule property spending Rs.5,000/- and planted mango trees and coconut trees in the property. Value of improvements was also claimed. The first defendant also claimed kudikidappu rights. According to the first defendant, Ext.A1 amounts to a lease and the property was demised as per Ext.A1 for enjoyment of the property by the first defendant. The first defendant claimed fixity of tenure under the Kerala Land Reforms Act.

4. The second defendant contended that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The mother of the second defendant is also entitled to the equity of redemption. It was contended by her that the suit was filed as a counter-blast to another suit filed by the second defendant and her mother for redemption of another item of property.

5. The trial court referred the question of tenancy to the Land Tribunal under Section 125(3) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. The Land Tribunal held, by a cryptic order, that the first defendant is a tenant entitled to fixity of tenure and that Ext.A1 confers the benefit of Section 2(39A) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act on the first defendant. Accepting the finding of the Land Tribunal, the trial court dismissed the suit. The trial court also held that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and that the claim of kudikidappu raised by the first defendant does not arise in view of the finding of the Land Tribunal that the first defendant is entitled to fixity of tenure. As regards value of improvements, the trial court held that as the first defendant is entitled to fixity of tenure, he is not entitled to value of improvements.

6. The Lower Appellate Court held that the Land Tribunal did not properly interpret the terms of Ext.A1. It was held that though Ext.A1 is styled as an ottikuzhikanam, it is clear from the recitals in Ext.A1 that the transaction amounts to a mortgage. As regards the contention that subsequent to Ext.A1, the mortgagee was put in possession of the trees as per a 'Sammathapathram', it was held that any such transaction could be made only by a registered instrument. The 'Sammathapathram' was not produced before the trial court and the first defendant did not adduce any evidence to show that possession of the trees was also given. It was found by the court below that the first defendant did not ge