Burn, J.

1. There is little that I can find to add to the judgment of the learned District Munsif and the judgment of tie learned District Judge in this case. The points taken to behalf of the appellant, are the same as were taken by him in both the lower Courts.

2. The third point depends upon the definition of Kanam in Section 3 (L) of the Malabar Tenancy Act. In that definition it is stated that the 5th incident of the transfer described as kanam is the liability of the transferee to pay the renewal fee to the transferor if the transferee is permitted to enjoy the said property for a further period after the termination of the original period. In the present case the renewal fee calculated according to the provisions of the Act comes to less than nothing, and the contention is, therefore, that the transferee is not liable to pay any renewal fee at all and consequently there is no kanam. This is not a contention which I can accept. It would make the document a kanam at one time and no kanam at another time according to the varying prices of produce. It confuses the question of the liability of the transferee to pay the renewal fee with the question of the amount of the rene