Pandalai, J.

1. This second appeal is from a decree of the learned Subordinate Judge allowing respondent 1s (plaintiffs) suit for specific performance of an agreement dated 30th May 1922 between him and respondents 2 and 3 (defendants 1 and 2) whereby the latter agreed to grant the former a lease or kanom of their shop which was and is still in the occupation of the appellant (defendant 3) as a yearly tenant. The District Munsif found all the original defences to the suit on the merits against the defendants but during the trial raised at the request of defendants an additional issue (issue 5) whether plaintiff is entitled in law to specific performance. On this issue he held against the plaintiff on the ground that the bargain was for a kanom which is virtually a mortgage and that the plaintiff lender cannot get specific performance of a contract to borrow. He relied on Meenakshisundaram Mudaliar v. Ratnasami Pillai. The Subordinate Judge confirmed all the findings of fact arrived at by the District Munsif but took the view that the bargain was not one of forcing a loan on respondents 2 and 3 (defendants 1 and 2.) He said It is usual for jenmis to grant kanoms of their prop