Judgment :- 1. Since the main question for decision in these two appeals is the same, the two appeals were heard together and they are disposed of by this common judgment. The decree in O.S. No. 506 of 1121 on the file of the Ettun annoor District Munsiff's Court has given rise to S.A. No. 648/1124, while the decree in O.S. No. 605 of 1121 on the file of the same court has given rise to S.A. No. 527 of 1950. 2. The plaintiff in the two suits is the same. O.S. No. 605 of 1121 is for recovery of possession of the plaint property from the defendants who are in possession and enjoyment of the same on the strength of the kanom deed Ext. I dated 23.8.1076, executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant's father. Ext. A is the counter-deed executed by the tenant in favour of the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff the demise under Ext. A or Ext. I is only a redeemable mortgage and accordingly redemption is sought for after setting off the arrears of michavaram and others dues due under Ext. A against the kanom amount. Future mesne profits have also been claimed. The defendants resisted the suit and contended that Ext. A evidences a kanom demise coming within the scope of the Travancore Jenmi and Kudiyan Act and that therefore the plaintiff is only entitled to recover the jenmikaram due in respect of the property and that the claim for the arrears beyond 6 years prior to the date of the suit is barred by limitation. The trial court upheld the defendant's contentions and passed a decree for recovery of the arrears of michavaram for a period of 6 years. The decree was confirmed by the lower appellate court in A.S. No. 236/1123. The correctness of these concurrent findings of the lower courts has been challenged in S.A. No. 527 of 1950. 3. The kanom document which is the basis of the other suit O.S. No. 506 of 1121 is Ext. A dated 8.2.1106. There also the position taken up by the plaintiff is that the tenure created under the document is only a redeemable mortgage. Accordingly he has sought redemption of the mortgage after setting off the michavaram and other dues which the defendants have left in arrears, against the kanom amount. He has also claimed future mesne profits. A dated 8.2.1106. There also the position taken up by the plaintiff is that the tenure created under the document is only a redeemable mortgage. Accordingly he has sought redemption of the mortgage after setting off the michavaram and other dues which the defendants have left in arrears, against the kanom amount. He has also claimed future mesne profits. The defendants in this suit also resisted the suit maintaining that the tenure under Ext.A is a kanom demise coming under the Travancore Jenmi and Kudiyan Act and that therefore the only relief which the plaintiff is entitled to is recover the arrears of jenmikaram due in respect of the suit property for a period of 6 years prior to the date of the suit. The trial court accepted the defendants' plea and gave a decree in favour of the plaintiff only for the recovery of such arrears of jenmi karam. That decree was confirmed by the lower appellate court in A.S. No. 256 of 1123 on the file of that court. The finding that the tenure under Ext. A is a kanom demise coming under the Travancore Jenmi and Kudiyan Act, is challenged in S.A. No. 648 of 1124. 4. It may be stated here that in view of the lower court's finding that the plaintiff is entitled only to recover arrears of jenmi karam in both those suits, the other issues raised in the two suits on the contentions of the parties have not been considered and decided by the lower courts. 5. Thus the only question for decision in these two appeals in whether the tenure created under the document sued on is a kanom demise coming within the scope of the Travancore Jenmi and Kudiyan Act. The most essential condition to be satisfied to bring the demise under this Act is that the property demised must be jenmom land as defined in Cl. (1) of S. 3 of the Act. The most essential condition to be satisfied to bring the demise under this Act is that the property demised must be jenmom land as defined in Cl. (1) of S. 3 of the Act. That definition is as follows: "jenmom land' means land (other than Pandaravagai, Sreepandaravagai, 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 periodical renewal of the right on the payment of renewal fees". It is significant to note that all varieties of Pandaravagai lands are excluded from the definition of Jenmom lands. Sreepandaravagai lands, Kandukrishi lands and Sirkar Devaswom lands recognised as such in the Sirkar accounts are also excluded from the definition of Jenmom lands. In the documents sued on in each of the two suits under consideration, the property is described as Pandaravagai Kudi Jenmom property. The question therefore is whether Pandaravagai Kudi Jenmom land is also jenmom land as defined in the Jenmi and Kudiyan Act. The lower courts have answered this question in the affirmative and the decision in Brahmananda Theerthar v. Krishna Pillai (1945 T.L.R. 221) has been relied on in support of such a conclusion. No doubt the document that had to be construed in that case had described the property as Pandaravagai Kudi Jenmom property and it was ruled by the High Court that the property demised was jenmom land and as such the demise was a Kanom demise coming under the Jenmi and Kudiyan Act. A careful reading of that decision shows that the conclusion arrived at in that case was justified by the evidence that had been adduced to show that at the time of the original demise the property was really jenmom land and that the plaint document was only a renewal of the earlier kanom demise. In view of such evidence the court held that the mere description of the property as Pandaravagai Kudi Jenmom in the renewal deed could not affect the nature of the original demise which was a kanom demise coming under the Jenmi and Kudiyan Act. In view of such evidence the court held that the mere description of the property as Pandaravagai Kudi Jenmom in the renewal deed could not affect the nature of the original demise which was a kanom demise coming under the Jenmi and Kudiyan Act. In that case it has not been ruled as a general proposition that Pandaravagai Kudi Jenmom lands are the same as Jenmom lands as defined in the Jenmi and Kudiyan Act. On the other hand, the distinction between the two categories of Kudi Jenmom lands viz., Pandaravagai Kudi Jenmom and Kudi Jenmom Inam lands has been clearly explained in that case and it has been pointed out that Kudi Jenmom Inam lands have been recognised from time immemorial as a category of jenmom land coming within the definition given in the Jenmi and Kudiyan Act. The consequence of an absolute alienation of Jenmom properties is that they cease to be jenmom lands thereafter, but are transferred to the head of Pandaravagai lands in the Sirkar accounts and are charged to one-four assessment. Thereafter they are designated as Pandaravagai Kudi Jenmom lands and are recognised in the Sirkar accounts as one variety of Pandaravagai lands. Lands which have thus lost their characteristic feature of jenmom land as being wholly exempt from Sirkar tax or only subject to the payment of Rajabhogam, cannot thereafter be deemed to be jenmom properties. To constitute a demise as a kanom demise coming under the Jenmi and Kudiyan Act, it is necessary that the property must retain the character of jenmom land even at the time of the demise. This condition is not satisfied by the plaint document in these two cases because even prior to the date of the documents the properties had become Pandaravagai Kudi Jenmom lands falling outside the definition of "jenmom land" and the demise was not of any jenmom land but only of Pandaravagai Kudi Jenmom land. It follows, therefore, that the demise under these documents cannot amount to a kanom demise coming under the Travancore Jenmi and Kudiyan Act and as such there is no force in the contention that the plaintiff is entitled only to recover the jenmikaram in respect of these properties. No question of assessment of jenmikaram can arise in respect of a demise which is outside the scope of the Jenmi and Kudiyan Act. No question of assessment of jenmikaram can arise in respect of a demise which is outside the scope of the Jenmi and Kudiyan Act. In respect of such demises the rights and liabilities of the parties have to be regulated by the terms of the contract embodied in the deed of demise. It is clear from a perusal of the plaint document in each of these cases that the parties have not created an irredeemable tenure by agreement. The provision for renewal will not by itself be sufficient to create such an irredeemable tenure. That provision will be satisfied and exhausted with the grant of one renewal and thereafter the owner of the property will be entitled to enforce his right of redemption. 6. In the result the finding of the lower courts in each of these cases that the plaint demise is an irredeemable kanom coming under the Travancore Jenmi and Kudiyan Act, is reversed and it is held that the demise in each of these cases is only a redeemable mortgage. Accordingly both the appeals are allowed with costs and the decrees passed by the lower courts are set aside and the two suits are remanded to the lower court for fresh disposal in accordance with the law and after a due consideration and decision of the other issues which have been raised in the suits. The court fee paid on the appeal memorandum in each of these appeals will be refunded to the appellant. A copy of this judgment will be placed among the records in each of these two suits. Allowed.