1The suit for redemption filed in 1963, from which this second appeal filed by the defendant arose, had a chequered history, which need not be mentioned here. Accepting the claim of tenancy put forward by the appellant, the Trial Court dismissed the suit. But the appellate judge reversed the decision and passed a preliminary decree for redemption negativing the tenancy claim following the decision in Godasankara Valia Raja v. Tharappan Vareed ( 1961 KLT 138 ).

2 The suit property is 59 cents of paddy field, which was leased out to the predecessor of the appellant under Ext. B1 melvaipa pattachit on 14.6.1113 and subsequently mortgaged to him on 12.8.1113 under Ext. P1. Appellant came by these rights under assignments and the respondent got the equity of redemption. These facts are not in dispute. The three questions arising for consideration are;
(a) whether leasehold right under Ext. B1 merged in Ext. 15 mortgage right ?
(b). Whether Ext. P1 operates as an implied surrender of Ext. B1; and
(c). if the above two points are found against, whether Ext. B1 itself is only a mortgage and not a lease?

3 There can be no merger of a lease and a mortgage, even where the two transactions are in