Judgment.-These two appeals which are against orders of remand raise a common question for determination, and that

is the construction of a certain document, Exhibit A-1, a panayam kychit, as it is called, dated 25th May, 1923. The suit

out of which these appeals arise was one for redemption on the footing that the document constituted a usufructuary

mortgage. It was resisted by the defendants on the ground that the transaction was in the nature of a kanam. The suit

was decreed by the trial Court but dismissed on appeal with the result that an application for renewal of the kanam

which had been rejected by the trial Court was ordered by the lower appellate Court.

There has been much argument advanced on both sides on this question of the construction of the document, but I think that if certain broad considerations of perspective are borne in mind the construction is not by any means one of

difficulty..

That there was a prior kanam on the expiry of which the suit document came into existence is not disputed. That an

amount of Rs.250 was fixed by the parties as purapad payable on the date of the execution of the document in question

and was in fact so paid is also common ground. Layin

Click Here to Read the rest of this document