Menankandi Madhavi Amma vs Kannoli Kalathi Sucheela

Subba Rao, J.—The only question in this revision is whether the suit transaction is a kanom within the meaning of the Malabar Tenancy Act.

A kanom is defined in Section 3(1) , Malabar Tenancy Act as follows;

''Kanom'' means the transfer for consideration in money or in kind or in both by a landlord of an interest in specific immovable property to

another (called ''kanamdar'') for the latter''s enjoyment, the incidents of which transfer include:

(1) a right in the transferee to hold the said property liable for the consideration paid by him or due to him which consideration is called

''kanartham'',

(2) the liability of the transferor to pay to the transferee interest on the kanartham,

(3) the payment of ''michavaram'' by the transferee,

(4) the right of the transferee to enjoy the said property for twelve years or any other period, and

(5) the liability of the transferee to pay a renewal fee to the transferor, if the transferee is permitted to enjoy the said property for a further period

after the termination of the original period:

Exhibit D-1 is a registration copy of the kanom-kuzhikanom deed by C. Gopalan and another to M. P. Mannan and another. The learned

counsel for the petitioner argued that the document is not a kanom as it consists of the following two terms: (1) that in regard to Rs. 300 out of the

advance of a sum of Rs. 1,000 the owner agreed to pay interest at 7 1/2 per cent. per annum; and (2) that the kanomdar is given the right to bring

the property to sale in case the amount is not paid within the time prescribed. As it contains the aforesaid two terms which are not included in the

definition of a kanom, it is argued that the transaction is not a kanom but a mortgage and therefore Act XVII [17] of 1946 has no application. In

Sundara Aiyar''s Malabar Law (1) the nature of kanom tenure has been succinctly described as follows:

Kanom is described in the Sudder Court proceedings as mortgage with possession, the mortgagee recovering interest on the money he has

advanced from the produce of the land and paying the net profits (michavarom) to the landlord. It thus partakes of the character of both a lease

and a mortgage. Sometimes the one character predominates, sometimes the other.

Therefore the fact that the document partakes the character of a mortgage and contains some terms other than those found in the definition of

kanom does not make it anytheless a kanom. If it is kanom, the kanomdar certainly comes under the definition of a tenant under the Malabar

Tenancy Act.

The parties described the document as kanom-kuzhikanom-deed. The petitioner in the plaint gave the terms of the kanom deed and described

the respondent as a kanomdar. The document contains all the material terms that are generally found in a kanom deed. The fact that the parties

agreed to one or more terms which are not ordinarily found in the kanom deed will not affect the question to be decided. It, therefore, follows that

the respondent is the tenant within the meaning of Act XVII [17] of 1946 and the lower Court was right in staying the suit under that Act. This

revision petition is dismissed with costs.