AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
5 paragraphs · 118 words
1.
The terms of the document in this case shown that the transaction is a mortgage; the person setting up that it is irredeemable should therefore
prove it. The lower Courts have held on evidence that the defendant who claims the mortgage to be irredeemable has not established his plea.
2.
In Kundu v. Imbichi ILR 7 Mad. 442 a similar tenure called ""Kaividuka othi"" was held to be redeemable; our attention has not been drawn to
any authorities or to any statements in books on Malabar Law to show that the tenure in question here ""Neerozhikka Otti Kanom"" is irredeemable.
We must therefore hold it to be redeemable. The Second Appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.