Judgment :- 1. First defendant is the second appellant. 2. The suit was for redemption of the plaint schedule properties held by the 1st defendant under Ext. A counter kanapattom deed. The 1st defendant contended that the properties are irredeemable. The courts below repelled this contention and allowed the suit. 3. The only question for decision in this second appeal is whether Ext. A is a redeemable mortgage. 4. In this connection it has to be ascertained whether the properties comprised in Ext. A are jenmom lands within the meaning of sub-s. (1) of S. 3 of the Jenmi and Kudiyan Act. The trial court held that they are jenmom lands while the lower appellate court took a contrary view. 5. The relevant provision of sub-s. (1) of S. 3 runs thus: "Jenmom lands" means land other than Pandaravakai, Sree Pandaravakai, Kandukrishi or Sirkar Devaswom land, recognised as such in the Sirkar Accounts which is either entirely exempt from Government tax, or if assessed to public revenue, is subject to Rajabhogam only, and the occupancy right in which is created for a money consideration (Kanom) and is also subject to the payment of michavaram or customary dues and the payment of renewal fees...." 6. The plaint properties belonged to Puthiyakkal Kovilakam. Exts. II (a) and III are copies of classification register of the plaint properties and Exts. IV and V are copies of the Chitta. The tenure (CjU) of the properties as seen from these documents is "Puthiyakkal Thampan Vaka Kanom". It is therefore evident that they are not Pandaravakai, Sreepandaravakai, Kandukrishi or Sirkar Devaswom lands recognised as such in the Sirkar accounts. The pattom assessed on the properties is 27 fanams and the tax assessed to the public revenue is 3 Fs.1 Ch. 8 cash ie.,1/8th of the pattom. The properties are therefore assessed to Rajabhogam only. Ext. A shows that Adukkuvathau was paid under it. Ext. A was executed in renewal of a prior kanom Ext. I (a). It appears that Ext. I (a) itself was executed in renewal of a still prior kanom. Adukkuvathu was paid at the time of execution of Ext. I (a) also. Thus renewal fees were being paid at the renewals of the kanom. It is also apparent from Exts. Ext. A was executed in renewal of a prior kanom Ext. I (a). It appears that Ext. I (a) itself was executed in renewal of a still prior kanom. Adukkuvathu was paid at the time of execution of Ext. I (a) also. Thus renewal fees were being paid at the renewals of the kanom. It is also apparent from Exts. A and I (a) that the occupancy right over the property was created for money consideration and is also subject to payment of michavaram. In these circumstances there can be no doubt that the plaint properties are jenmom lands held under a Kanapattom as defined in Jenmi and Kudiyan Act. 7. Reliance is however placed on the entries in Column 33 of Exts. II (A) and III which show that the registry-holder as per the Ayacut was one Kavumpurathu Kelan. On the basis of these entries it is argued that originally the properties could not have belonged to Puthiyakkal Kovilakam and therefore the lands in question could not be considered as jenmom lands. We do not think that this argument is well-founded. For purposes of the Jenmi Kudiyan Act the question whether a property is jenmom land or not has to be determined entirely with reference to the definition of the term "Jenmom land" given in the Act. Therefore if at the time of execution of the document in question the proprietorship to the properties vested in the Puthiyakkal Kovilakam and if the lands are jenmom lands as defined in the Act. ie. (lands other than Pandaravakai, Sreepandaravakai, Kandukrishi or Sirkar Devasom lands recognised as such in Sirkar accounts) which are either entirely exempt from Government tax or if assessed to public revenue is subject to Rajabhogam only and the occupancy right in which is created for money consideration (Kanom) and is also subject to payment of michavaram and customary dues and the payment of renewal fees" then it would be a document coming within the purview of the Act unless it is exempt by some other provisions thereof. But it is argued that in Ext. A the properties are stated to be 'Thettam' and that the full rights must therefore belong to the Ayacut registry-holder Kavumpurathu Kelan. It is nowhere suggested in the case that Puthiyakkal Kovilakam that executed the Kanapattom had not the full ownership of the properties in question. But it is argued that in Ext. A the properties are stated to be 'Thettam' and that the full rights must therefore belong to the Ayacut registry-holder Kavumpurathu Kelan. It is nowhere suggested in the case that Puthiyakkal Kovilakam that executed the Kanapattom had not the full ownership of the properties in question. In fact plaintiff admits in paragraph 2 of the plaint that the plaint schedule properties belonged to Puthiyakkal Kovilakam. In the face of the clear admission in plaint now weight could be attached to the case set up at this stage in second appeal that the Kovilakam had not the full rights over the properties. 8. Next it has to be considered whether the Kanapattom in question is exempt from the purview of the Jenmi and Kudiyan Act by virtue of S. 42 thereof. 9. S.42 enacts: "Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing, the provisions of this Regulation shall not apply to any Kanapattoms executed since the 25th day of Karkadagom 1042, which expressly provide for redemption". We have therefore to see whether Ext. A can be construed as containing an express provision for redemption. 10. Ext. A is an either Kanom executed by Kudiyan in favour of the Jenmi. From the working of the document it is clear that a renewal of the document in accordance with the custom in the jenmi's Kovilakam was in the contemplation of the parties. All that is stated is that if the executant (the kudiyan) is not willing to execute a renewal in accordance with the custom then existing in the family of the jenmi, then he (the kudiyan) will surrender the property on payment of the kana-artham and value of improvements as stipulated in the document. The document only gives an option to the kudiyan to surrender the property if he is not willing to accept a renewal. It seems to us that the intention of the parties as can be gathered from Ext. A was to confer on the kudiyan the right either to take a renewal or to surrender the property if he so choose and not to give the jenmi the right to redeem the property after 12 years. 11. It is contended that the consent for renewal that is contemplated in the document is the consent of the jenmi and not that of the kudiyan. We have carefully read Ext. 11. It is contended that the consent for renewal that is contemplated in the document is the consent of the jenmi and not that of the kudiyan. We have carefully read Ext. A and we do not think that the wording of the document justifies the construction that is sought to be placed upon it by the learned Advocate for the respondent. We are therefore of the view that Ext. A does not come within the excemption contemplated under S. 42 of the Jenmi and Kudiyan Act. 12. There has not been any renewal of Ext. A nor has there been any offer from the kudiyan to surrender the property on payment of Kana-artham and the value of improvements. When the kudiyan continues to hold the property, the presumption is that he holds on the same terms as are contained in Ext. A. Moreover, it is admitted in Paragraph 5 of the plaint that the kudiyan has been so holding the property and that he has paid michavaram till 1105. There is not even an averment in the plaint that there had been a refusal on the part of the kudiyan to accept a renewal of the document on the terms stipulated in Ext. A. The plaint proceeded on the assumption that the document reserves a right of redemption on the part of the jenmi on the expiry of the twelve years stipulated in Ext. A. Though there is an averment in the replication in answer to the plea of the 1st defendant that he was always ready and willing to take a renewal, that Puthiyakkal Thampan and plaintiff demanded a renewal there is no evidence in the case to substantiate that. Paragraph 7 of the plaint makes it expressly clear that demand was only for surrender of the property and that the Ist defendant refused it. 13. Thus while the 1st defendant was holding the property under Ext. A, the Jenmi and Kudiyan Act V of 1071 was amended under Act XII of 1108. If as stated above the document is a kanapattom coming within the purview of the Jenmi and Kudiyan Act then the provisions of S.5 of the Act as amended are attracted to it and the rights of the parties have to be determined in the light of the provisions of the Section as amended. If as stated above the document is a kanapattom coming within the purview of the Jenmi and Kudiyan Act then the provisions of S.5 of the Act as amended are attracted to it and the rights of the parties have to be determined in the light of the provisions of the Section as amended. The rights of the parties after the amendment are governed not on the basis of what they contracted for but on the basis of what the law enjoins. 14. S.5 provides that: "From and after the commencement of the Amendment Regulation, the jenmi shall not have any right, claim or interest in any land in a holding except the right to receive the jenmikaram thereon and the kudiyan shall be deemed to be the owner of the land subject only to the payment of the jenmikaram". Therefore from and after the date of the amendment the kudiyan in this case has become the owner of the plaint properties subject only to a liability to pay jenmikaram. This being the case the plaintiff has no right to seek redemption of the properties. After Act XII of 1108 the question of any further renewal does not arise for the law has done away with any such renewals and has vested the ownership of such properties in the kudiyan subject only to his liability to pay jenmikaram. 17. It is stated that no jenmikaram has been fixed for the properties. If so, the plaintiff is alone to blame. The plaintiff will have to seek appropriate remedies in respect of it if it is still open to him to do so. But the circumstance that jenmikaram has not been fixed will not avail him to redeem the properties. 18. We hold that plaint properties are irredeemable by virtue of the provisions of S. 5 of the Jenmi and Kudiyan Act V of 1071 as amended by Act XII of 1108. 19. No other point was urged in second appeal. 20. The suit therefore fails. In reversal of the decrees of the courts below we allow this second appeal and dismiss plaintiff's suit with costs in all the courts. Petition allowed.