JUDGMENT : Joseph Vithayathil, J. The plaintiff, Paliam Estate, is the appellant. The suit is for redemption. The plaint properties belong to the Paliam Estate. According to the plaintiff, they were given on usufructuary mortgage to the first defendant’s mother, Kunjikavu Amma, on 24.4.1076 for Rs. 668/-. Ext. VII is copy of the mortgage deed. Ext. H is the either deed executed by the mortgagee. After the death of Kunjikavu Amma the first defendant is in possession of the properties. The plaintiff sued for redeeming the mortgage after setting off the mortgage amount against arrears of michavaram and claimed future mesne profits at the rate of 138 paras of paddy per year. Defendants 2 to 4 are lessees under the first defendant. 2. The first defendant contended that Ext. VII is not a mortgage but is an irredeemable kanam, that Kunjikavu Amma was in possession of the properties even before the date of Ext. VII, that the properties were not liable to be redeemed, that michavaram tendered was not accepted, that there was no valid tender of the mortgage money and that, in case of redemption, he was entitled to get the value of improvements effected in the properties. The second defendant contended that he had effected improvements in the properties worth Rs. 1500/-. 3. The main question for decision in the suit was whether Ext. VII was a redeemable mortgage or an irredeemable kanom. The court below found that it was an irredeemable kanom and consequently the prayer for redemption was disallowed. Plaintiff was given a decree for arrears of michavaram, kazhcha and tax till date of suit at the rate claimed in the plaint. Plaintiff and the first defendant were directed to pay and receive proportionate costs. 4. The only question for decision in this appeal is whether Ext. VII is a redeemable mortgage or a kanom within the meaning of Cl. (d) of S. 2 of the Cochin Tenancy Act, XV of 1113, as amended by Act VI of 1115. Plaintiff and the first defendant were directed to pay and receive proportionate costs. 4. The only question for decision in this appeal is whether Ext. VII is a redeemable mortgage or a kanom within the meaning of Cl. (d) of S. 2 of the Cochin Tenancy Act, XV of 1113, as amended by Act VI of 1115. That clause reads as follows:- “In this Act, unless there is something repugnant in the subject or context, kanom means a demise with the following incidents:- (1) An initial lump sum consideration, in money or in kind or both, given or deemed to be given by the tenant to the landlord which is mentioned as such in the demise and bears a specified interest; (2) The payment of michavaram, if any, by the tenant to the landlord; (3) The right of the tenant to occupy the property demised for twelve years or for any other longer period which is specified; (4) The liability to pay renewal fee on renewal of the demise. Explanation I: A transaction called ‘Panayam’ in the document evidencing it may create a kanam within the meaning of this section. Explanation II: (1) A transaction called ‘Panayam’ in the document evidencing it and possessing the incidents mentioned in sub-cls. (1) and (2) of this clause shall, until the contrary is proved, be presumed to be a kanom within the meaning of this section, if it is a renewal of a previous document or if in respect of it a counter-part has been executed by the panayam tenant or there is a provision for renewal or for payment of puravaka dues. Provided that nothing in this Explanation shall apply to a document expressly described as karipanayam, kaivasapanayam, kozhuvarakapanayam or nadappupanayam. (2) A provision in any document of the kind referred to in Cl. (1) providing for surrender of the holding on demand to the landlord shall not, by itself, give rise to any presumption contrary to that provided for in Cl. (1) of this Explanation”. The proviso to Explanation II does not apply to this case since the document in question is described as panayam and not as karipanayam, kaivasapanayam, kozhuvarkapanayam or nadappupanayam. It is not disputed that Ext. VII possesses incidents Nos. 1 and 2 mentioned in Cl. (d) to S. 2, viz., the initial lump sum consideration bearing a specified interest and provision for payment of michavaram. It is not disputed that Ext. VII possesses incidents Nos. 1 and 2 mentioned in Cl. (d) to S. 2, viz., the initial lump sum consideration bearing a specified interest and provision for payment of michavaram. Therefore Explanation II will apply to the case, the consequently if Ext. VII is a renewal of a previous document or if in respect of it a counter part has been executed by the panayam tenant or if there is a provision for renewal or for payment of puravaka dues the transaction will be presumed to be a kanam and it will be for the plaintiff to prove the contrary. In other words, it will be presumed that incidents Nos. 3 and 4 also exist, viz., that the tenant has right to occupy the properties for twelve years or more and that he has a liability to pay renewal fee on renewal of the demise. A counter part has been executed by the panayam tenant in this case and, therefore, the presumption provided for in explanation II will arise here. The plaintiff has not attempted to prove that the tenant has no right to occupy the properties demised for twelve years or more. 5. With regard to the fourth incident the plaintiff attempted to prove that the tenant has not paid renewal fee at the time when Ext. VII was executed. If the plaintiff succeeds in proving that the tenant has no liability to pay renewal fee on renewal of the demise the fourth incident will be absent and in that case the transaction will not be a kanam within the meaning of the Act. The question therefore is whether the plaintiff has succeeded in proving that the tenant has no liability to pay renewal fee on renewal of the demise. 6. The plaintiff has produced Exts. K and L, nalvazhi accounts for the years 1076 and 1081. They show that no renewal fee was paid by the tenant in those years. The ‘peredu’ in the name of the tenant has not been produced. Assuming that Ext. K shows that no renewal fee was paid by the tenant at the time when Ext. VII was executed that does not conclusively prove that the tenant had no liability to pay renewal fee on the renewal of the demise. Learned counsel for the respondent contended that there is nothing to show that Ext. Assuming that Ext. K shows that no renewal fee was paid by the tenant at the time when Ext. VII was executed that does not conclusively prove that the tenant had no liability to pay renewal fee on the renewal of the demise. Learned counsel for the respondent contended that there is nothing to show that Ext. VII is a renewal of a prior panayam and that in any case the question of the liability of the tenant to pay renewal fee will arise only at the time of the renewal of Ext. VII. 7. Ext. VII shows that the property has been demised under a panayam of 1062 and that the liability under that panayam was discharged by the execution of Ext. VII. It is also seen from Ext. VII that the prior panayam deed and the title deeds mentioned therein were handed over to the plaintiff. There can, therefore, be no doubt that Ext. VII is a renewal of a prior panayam. We are also unable to agree with the contention of learned counsel for the respondent that the question of the liability of the tenant to pay renewal fee will arise only at the time of the renewal of Ext. VII. What Cl. (d) provides is that, under the demise, the tenant should have a liability to pay renewal fee on renewal of the demise. If what is required is not liability under the demise but under the renewed document the provision may become nugatory since in the case of every suit instituted on the basis of a renewed panayam the tenant can contend that the question of liability to pay renewal fee will arise only at the time of the next renewal. The question for decision is whether, under the demise, the tenant had the liability to pay renewal fee on renewal of the demise. 8. The document of 1062 has not been produced by the plaintiff. Ext. VII shows that it is in the possession of the plaintiff. In the absence of that document it is not possible to know whether under the demise of 1062 the tenant had the liability to pay renewal fee on renewal of the demise. As stated already, the fact that the tenant did not actually pay renewal fee when Ext. VII was executed does not conclusively prove that he had no liability to pay renewal fee. As stated already, the fact that the tenant did not actually pay renewal fee when Ext. VII was executed does not conclusively prove that he had no liability to pay renewal fee. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the plaintiff has rebutted the presumption raised by Explanation II to Cl. (d) of S. 2 that the transaction in question is a kanam. We therefore confirm the judgment and decree of the court below and dismiss the appeal with costs. Dismissed.