Judgment :- 1. This second appeal arises out of a suit for redemption of an otti, and recovery of possession of the mortgage property. The suit was decreed by the trial court and the appeal against the trial court's decree was dismissed by the lower appellate court. So defendants 1 and 2 have brought this second appeal. 2. Defendant 1 is the ottidar. His contention in the trial court was that the transaction was not a mortgage but a kanom and that he had permanency of tenure under the Malabar Tenancy Act. The courts below overruled this contention on a consideration of the terms of the otti document. After this second appeal was filed the Malabar Tenancy Act has been amended and under S.22 of the Amended Act it is open to the tenant to adduce evidence and prove notwithstanding the provisions of the Evidence Act, that the transaction though purporting to be a mortgage is in fact only a kanom and that he is entitled to fixity of tenure. The first point urged by the appellant's counsel is that the suit might be remanded to the trial court so as to give him an opportunity to avail himself of this section and prove by other evidence that the transaction is a kanom and that he is entitled to have fixity of tenure. As the change in law was effected subsequent to the filing of this second appeal I consider that this prayer has to be granted in the interests of justice. 3. The appellant's counsel also urged that when the suit goes back defendants 2 and 3 may be allowed to avail themselves of the benefit of S.43 of the Amended Act and prove that they are persons actually cultivating the property or having kudiyirruppu in it and so they are not liable to be evicted. Defendant 3 has acquiesced in the decree of the lower appellate court and has not joined defendants 1 and 2 in filing the second appeal. Even after the amendment of the Act he has not come up to the Court with any application for associating himself with defendants 1 and 2 in conducting the appeal or filed any second appeal. The prayer made by the appellant's counsel on behalf of defendant 3 cannot therefore be allowed. Even after the amendment of the Act he has not come up to the Court with any application for associating himself with defendants 1 and 2 in conducting the appeal or filed any second appeal. The prayer made by the appellant's counsel on behalf of defendant 3 cannot therefore be allowed. So far as defendant 2 is concerned, his case in the written statement was clear, namely, that he had taken an assignment from a sub-tenant of defendant 1 and had leased the property to defendant 3. He had no case at any time before now that he was in actual occupation of the property and cultivating or living in it. At the time of arguments here it was stated that defendant 2 has, after the filing of the second appeal, taken an assignment or release from defendant 3 and is now in actual possession. But the deed of assignment or release has not been produced in this Court and counsel was also unable to give me even the date of the deed. I therefore feel unable to accede to the prayer made on behalf of defendant 2 either. 4. In the result, the second appeal is allowed to this extent, namely, that the suit is remanded to the trial court for giving defendant 1 an opportunity to avail himself to the benefit of S.22 of the Amended Malabar Tenancy Act and is dismissed in other respects. If defendant 1 succeeds in proving after the remand that the transaction is a kanom and he is entitled to fixity of tenure, the trial court will pass a fresh decree in the light of that section granting fixity of tenure to him. Defendant 2 will pay one-half of the costs of the plaintiffs-respondents in this court, and defendant 1 will bear his costs. Allowed.