The central legal point established in the judgment is that the interpretation of terms defined in the Act, the analysis of the document, and the consideration of circumstances are crucial in determining the nature of possession and the applicability of relevant provisions.

M.S. MENON, J.

1. The plaintiff in O. S. No. 316 of 1951 of the Court of the District Munsiff of Palghat is the appellant in this second appeal. The suit was for redemption and recovery of possession of the items of property specified in the plaint and for consequential reliefs. The trial court said:

“In the result, the suit is decreed for redemption and possession against the defendants with future purappad at the rate of 110 paras of paddy a year on payment of Rs.222-13-9 as mortgage amount and Rs.194-2-6 as value of improvements. Set off allowed. Both parties to bear their costs “

2. The defendants appealed to the Court of the Subordinate Judge of South Malabar at Palghat. The Judge allowed the said appeal, A. S. No. 117 of 1954:

“In the result, the appeal is allowed, the decree of the lower court is modified and the plaintiff is given a decree for Rs.449-11-8, the arrears of purappad claimed in the plaint, and costs of suit. The suit for redemption and possession is dismissed with costs of the defendants. In appeal the appellants will get their full costs from the respondent.”

3. The document concerned is Ext. B1 dated 30-12-1919. The decision of the Subordinate Judge is based on his conclusion that it represents a kanom demise.

4. Section 21 of the Malabar Tenancy Act, 1929 (omitting the two provisos thereto which are not material) reads as follows:

“Notwithstanding any contract to the contrary, whether entered into before or after the commencement of this Act, every cultivating verumpattomdar, every customary verumpattomdar, every kanomdar, every kanom-kuzhikanomdar, every kuzhikanomdar, every tenant of a kudiyiruppu and every holder of a protected ulkudi or a kudikidappu shall have fixity of tenure in respect of his holding and shall not be evicted therefrom except as provided in this Act” and if Ext. Bl spells kanom there can be no doubt that the Subordinate Judge was right and that this second appeal has to be dismissed. ‘Kanom’ is defined as follows in section 2 (14) of the Act:

“Kanom means the transfer for consideration in money or in kind or in both by a landlord of an interest in specific immovable property to another (called the ‘kanomdar’) for the latter’s enjoyment, the incidents of which transfer include-

(a) A right in the transferee to hold the said property liable for the consideration paid by him or due to him which consideration is called ‘Kanartham’

(b) The liability of the transferor to pay to the transferee interest on the kanartham, and

(c) The payment of ‘michavaram’ by the transferee.”

5. If the words “called the kanomdar” and called ‘kanartham’ mean that the transferee should be styled “kanomdar” and the consideration “kanartham” in the document concerned, then Ext. B1 will certainly not pass the test as neither the word “kanomdar” nor the word “kanartham” is used therein. In S. A. No. 1096 of 1952 (M) Kumara Pillai, J., said:

“To my mind, these words do not signify that the transferee should be referred to specifically in the document itself as the kanomdar or the consideration should be referred specifically in the document as kanartham”

We are in agreement with this view.

6. What the Legislature has done is only to specify the usual Malayalam expressions for the transferee and the consideration in such cases so that the meaning may be clear and confusion avoided when those expressions are used, Both the words “kanomdar” and “kanartham” occur in subsequent portions of the Act.

7. This type of legislative drafting is by no means unfamiliar. Section 126 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, for example, says:

“A ‘contract of guarantee’ is a contract to perform the promise, or discharge the liability, of a third person in case of his default. The person who gives the guarantee is called the ‘surety’, the person in respect of whose default the guarantee is given is called the ‘principal debtor’, and the person to whom the guarantee is given is called the ‘creditor’.”

It has never been contended that the word “