The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the custom of Malabar regarding the redemption of kaividu otti, based on historical references and evidence of usage in the district.

Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J. and Muttusami Ayyar, J.

1. The first question of fact that must be determined in order to arrive at a conclusion on the plea of limitation is--Whether the transaction by which possession passed to the fourth defendant was a sale for consideration of an absolute interest, or an assignment of the otti right? Presumably, a mortgagee conveys no higher right than his own; it lies on the fourth defendant to prove he bargained for, and obtained an absolute interest. The Judge does not give any reason for believing the assignment to have been absolute.

2. The issue must be remitted to the lower Appellate Court for retrial upon the evidence already recorded, and on such further evidence as may be adduced by the parties with reference thereto.

3. If the Judge finds that the fourth defendant was not a purchaser of a jenm-title, he must try on evidence as to custom, what are the incidents of a kaividu otti in respect of redemption.

4. The District Judge will submit his finding together with the evidence to this Court within three months from the date of receiving this order. Ten days will be allowed thereafter for filing objections.

5. In accordance with the above order the Acting District Judge (F. H Wilkinson) submitted the following

6. Findings: "First.--The Court of First Instance found that first defendant, the representative of the original demisor, had sold his rights to fourth defendant, a stranger who has since 1856 been treated as the virtual holder of the lands (exhibits V to VII). Exhibit VII is the tir deed executed by first defendant and his mother to fourth defendant. Its genuineness does not appear to have been disputed by the plaintiffs. At this hearing the plaintiffs pleader does not deny that fourth defendant was a bona fide purchaser for consideration, and the fourth defendants pleader states that he does not claim an absolute interest, that he never pretended that he purchased a jenm-title, but merely asserts that he purchased an otti right--which right was one which the jenmi had no right to redeem. I find, therefore, on this issue that the transaction by which fourth defendant obtained possession was an assignment for valuable consideration of the first defendants otti right.

7. Second.--What are the incidents of a kaividu otti in respect of redemption.

8. The plaintiff asserts that a kaividu otti is redeemable, the fourth defendant that it is irredeemable.

9. The latter called only two witnesses, whose evidence is absolutely worthless. His first witness, one Raman Nayar, whose demeanour under examination convinced me that he had come prepared to stick to one assertion, is ignorant of Malabar tenures. He asserts that the result of his experience of seventy three years is that a kaividu otti is the highest tenure in Malabar. In answer to the question-- Do you know of any right called kaividu otti--he answered glibly: I never heard of a kaividu otti being redeemed. He says that there are no deeds intermediate between kaividu-otti deed and a deed of absolute sale. He admits that ottikamparam and nirmutal are redeemable and that jenm-panayam is sometimes redeemed. Fourth defendants second witness wisely says that he knows nothing about kaividu otti.

10. The plaintiff called six witnesses and filed twelve documents in support of his contention that a kaividu otti is redeemable.

11. His sixth witness was the first defendant, who was a party to the petition of claim (exhibit A) and to the lists of property and documents (exhibits B and C). The plaint lands having been attached in execution of a decree obtained against first defendants karnavan, the anandravan of the family put in an objection and a list of the family lands, &c. The plaint lands are in that list entered as held on otti tenure. Exhibits AA and CC are kaividu-otti deeds, which are described in the list as otti. They are assigned by first defendants tarwad to one Nambonur Koman Nayar, who thereupon brought suits (Original Suits 179 and 1