Judgment :- 1. The short question in this second appeal by the judgment-debtor is whether the order of the lower court refusing to stay execution under Act I of 1)57 in reversal of the order of the executing court to contrary effect, is any way wrong. 2. The property was originally outstanding with the defendant under a venpattom of 1103 from the plaintiff's family. On the allotment of the property to plaintiff in family partition he got the defendant to accept Ext. P-3 pattu panayam in 1115 for a sum of Rs. 98, adjusting the improvements under this lease to certain extent. Ext. P-3 carried a term of 12 years. Even before the term was over, the plaintiff executed a puravaippa in 1123 borrowing thereunder a further sum of Rs. 98. Under Ext. P-3 the defendant was to pay the plaintiff a patta michavaram of Re.1 and some perquisites by way of Onakalcha etc. This liability of the defendant ceased with the execution of Ext. P-2. It should be noticed also that Ext. P-3 provides for a personal liability of the plaintiff for the consideration thereunder and Ext. P-2 provides for the payment of this amount thereunder also at time of redemption by the plaintiff after term. And further Ext. P-2 chose to describe the prior transaction under Ext. P-3 rather deliberately as an otti. 3. The execution court felt impressed by the long term under Exts. P-3 and P-2 and the provisions for effecting improvements in both Exts. P-3 and P-2 and further the provision for Onakalcha etc. dues in Ext. P-3 and so held that the lease aspect predominated so as to invite the application of Act I of 1957. The lower appellate court felt that on the whole the loan and security aspect predominated. In its opinion Ext. P-2 was rather clinching from the point of view of the aspect advocated by it. 4. There is no doubt that much could be said on both sides. But having considered the argument of learned counsel on both sides and the evidence in the case, I am inclined to say that the learned judge's conclusion is preferable to that of the executing court. For apart from the factors which have been stressed by the judge there is one aspect not noticed by both the courts, that is the reservation in Ext. For apart from the factors which have been stressed by the judge there is one aspect not noticed by both the courts, that is the reservation in Ext. P-3 of certain trees though few, by the plaintiff for himself. The point is that exclusive possession of the property which is a requisite of a lease, was not given under Ext. P-3. There is no reason therefore to affix the index of a lease pure and simple to Ext. P-3. This taken with the rest of the aspects emphasised by the learned judge, may be taken to be indicative that the lease aspect as such was not in the intention of the parties. 5. I therefore hold along with the court below that this case is not covered by the Act I of 1957. The second appeal fails and is dismissed. There will be no order for costs however.