The central legal point established is that specific performance can be granted for agreements related to tenure in land, even if there are elements of lending or borrowing involved.

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 properties and the tenants to get them on payment of kanom amounts. In the present case the plaintiff is only seeking to en-force his rights to get the kanom tenure which is a peculiar holding in Malabar in respect of the suit property. After entering into a contract with plaintiff they have turned round and given the melcharth to defendant 3. The property is usually held by kanom tenants. Therefore the ruling in Meenakshisundaram v. Ratnasami [1918] 41 Mad. 959 cannot be said to be exactly applicable to the present case.

2. Respondents 2 and 3 (defendants 1 and 2) have not appealed. But defendant 3, the yearly tenant of the shop who has been found by both Courts to have taken,, after the agreement sued on and with knowledge of the same, a kanom from respondents 2 and 3 is the appellant. His learned advocate argues that the rule that specific performance of a contract to lend or borrow will hot be enforced applies to this case and relies on the above cited decision and on Vadavendra Bhatta v. Srinivasa Babu A.I.R. 1925 Mad. 62 and Galim v. Sadarijan Bibi [1916] 43 Cal. 59, and on the English decisions cited therein which establish the rule. Were this contract substantially one for lending or borrowing as distinguishable from a contract for a well known tenure of land prevalent in a part of the Presidency and subject to well recognized incidents, the appellants argument would succeed. But if the contract was really and substantially not for lending money but for a tenure in land the fact that one of the incidents of the tenure is that the kanom tenant advances money to the jenmi and that there are stipulations for the return of the sum or such portion of it as is left after settling of arrears of rent at the termination of the tenure, is not in my opinion sufficient to make the contract one of borrowing or lending. By Section 12 (c), Specific Belief Act, the Court may enforce specific relief if the act agreed to be done is such that pecuniary relief would not afford [adequate relief and the explanation says [that a breach of contract to transfer immovable property shall be presumed to be [one not capable of adequate relief by compensations in money. To those conversant with the system of property holding in Malabar, including in that expression the whole of the Malayalam speaking country, it would certainly come as a startling surprise to learn that a bargain for a kanom was one for money and not for land.

3. In the States of Travancore and Cochin, the State has intervened by legislation to confer on the holders of this tenure rights of permanent occupancy which were imperilled by the development of the notions of mortgage and redemption and second mortgage introduced by modern Courts interpreting western jurisprudence. It is matter of public knowledge that