The first defendant was one in whose favour an othi demise had been executed. The plaintiff was the mortgagor. Defendants 2 and 3 were described as sub-kanomdars of the first defendant. The plaintiff filed a suit to redeem the mortgage, whereupon defendants 2 and 3, supported by the first defendant, filed an application for stay of the suit under section 4 (1) (a) of the Madras Act XVII of 1946, Stating that they were tenants of the land within the definition of “tenant” in section 3 (v) of the Malabar Tenancy Act, and that the suit was one in which their eviction was involved. The Court below held that the first defendant was an othidar and was not therefore a tenant. Defendants 2 and 3, it thought had no higher rights then the first defendant.

The word “tenant” in the Malabar Tenancy Act includes certain persons who have agreed to pay rent or other consideration, for being allowed to enjoy the land of another. If, however, they are in enjoyment of the land as security for the sum advanced by them, they would not be covered by this definition. Moreover, othis are well-known in Malabar law, and the omission of othidar from the category of persons included within the defin