The plaintiff is the appellant. A suit for

redemption of mortgage by the mortgagor/plaintiff

ended in dismissal in both the Trial Court and the

First Appellate Court. Aggrieved by the said

concurrent finding and decree of dismissal of suit,

the plaintiffs came up with this appeal.

2. The subject matter of the suit consists of

plaint schedule properties having an extent of 22

cents. The relief sought in the plaint is for

redemption of the mortgage and also for declaring

that Ext.A3 gift deed and Ext.A5 release deed are

void. Both the Trial Court and the First Appellate

Court found that Ext.A4 document is a lease deed

and as such the relief of redemption of mortgage

rejected concurrently.

3. The substantial questions to be addressed

are:

(i) What actually amounts to the expression

“Ottikuzhikanam” ? Whether it stands for lease or

4

mortgage and whether the Trial Court and the First

Appellate Court are justified in construing Ext.A4

as a lease?

(ii) What actually makes the difference between

an usufructuary mortgage and a lease and what are

the factors which makes the difference, when the

document is styled as “Ottikuzhikanam”?

4. The plaintiffs claim that Ext.A4 is a

mortga