Judgment :- 1. The point that arises for decision in this C.R.P., filed by the defendant is as to whether the proceedings in O.S. 149 of 1957, now pending before the learned District Munsiff, Changanacherry, have to be stayed under Kerala Act 1/1957. 2. The suit was for redemption of what according to the plaintiffs is of a mortgage evidenced by Ex-Pi dated 28-7-1079. According to the defendants, this document, Ex-P1 is really a lease and as such it will come under the definition of a holding under S.2 (1) of Kerala Act 1/1957. The learned District Munsiff has on a consideration of the various clauses in the document, come to the conclusion that the debtor and creditor relationship is more predominant in Ex-P1, than that of a lessor-lessee relationship. In this view, the trial court held that though the document is styled as a taAhmbv] ]m< 3. It is against this order that this revision has been filed by the defendant. Mr. K.K. Mathew, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the interpretation placed by the trial court on the document, Ex-Pi is not correct. According to the learned counsel, the document predominantly evidences a lessor-lessee relationship and it also shows that a lease-hold right was created in favour of the defendants and possession of the property was transferred on that basis. The learned counsel has taken me through the entire document and has also placed considerable stress on the name given to the document namely, that it is the learned counsel also has placed equally considerable stress on the expressions used therein namely: I will deal with this presently a little more in detail. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Mathew Muricken, learned counsel for the plaintiff, has supported the judgment of the trial court in full. In particular, he has also drawn my attention to the latest judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Ramdhan Puri v. Bankey Bihari (A.I.R.1958 S.C. 941) where according to the learned counsel, the principles to decide as to whether a document partakes of a creditor-debtor relationship or a landlord-tenant relationship have been laid down. Before I consider the contentions of the learned counsel on both sides, it is desirable to enumerate the salient features of the document. Before I consider the contentions of the learned counsel on both sides, it is desirable to enumerate the salient features of the document. In my opinion, the trial court has taken considerable care to find out the several features contained in the document both for and against the contentions of the defendant and ultimately, the conclusions arrived at by that court are acceptable to me. 5. The document, as stated earlier, starts by saying that it is a The amount mentioned in the document is a sum of 17,101 Rasis received by the executant from the executees. The document also mentions the properties which are put, in my opinion, as security for loan in these words: The possession of the properties is given to the executees. No doubt, on this point according to Mr. Mathew, even though a charge may be said to be created for the 17,101 Rasis, possession is not given by virtue of the charge but by virtue of a later recital namely that he is to enjoy the property as The next clause is that the Pattom derivable from the property is fixed in the sum of 1,893 Paras of paddy of which, 262 Paras and 7 Edangalis are allowed to be appropriated for the payment of the tax and Michavaram. Another 1,610 Paras and 21/2 Edangalis of paddy are allowed to be appropriated towards interest due on 17,101 Rasis which is covered by the document. Again, the document says that the balance Pattom of 33 Paras and 31/2 Edangalis of paddy is to be paid by the executees to the executant every year. There is another clause that the transaction is to be in force till Medom 1085 at which time, the executants will pay the sum of 17,101 Rasis and take back the properties from the executees along with the vouchers for payment of taxes and Michavaram etc. 6. These in main, are the relevant clauses, in my opinion, that have to be taken into consideration to find out what exactly is the type of relationship that was sought to be created by the parties and actually created by the document, Ex-P1 7. 6. These in main, are the relevant clauses, in my opinion, that have to be taken into consideration to find out what exactly is the type of relationship that was sought to be created by the parties and actually created by the document, Ex-P1 7. As laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the recent decision in Ramdhan Puri v. Bankey Bihari (A.I.R.1958 S.C. 941): "The only guiding rule that can be extracted from the cases on the subject is that the intention of the parties must be looked into and that once you get a debt with security of land for its redemption, then the arrangement is mortgage by whatever name it is called." No doubt, in Ex-Pi, here and there the expression, namely, 'Pattom' finds a place. That is used in the various portions in the document. The document also, as stated earlier, is called But the legal position is quite clear that the nomenclature of a document, by itself, is not conclusive, if the various other recitals in the document evidence a contrary intention. 8. On an entire reading of the document, the impression that is created in my mind is the same as that formed by the trial court namely, that it is the debtor and creditor relationship that is predominant in the whole transaction. I am not able to accept the contention of Mr. Mathew that a charge has been created for the repayment of 17,101 Rasis, and then after a split second or so, the possession of the properties have been given under a different transaction namely, that of a lease. In my opinion, it is not possible to cut a document into such pieces, unless the clear recitals warrant it and, in my opinion, this document does not warrant such a reading. 9. The document, though called as is really executed for the purpose of getting a loan from the executees in the sum of 17,101 Rasis. The intention to create a security by way of a That clearly shows that the amount advanced is taken as a loan by the executants and a security for that loan is created in and by the said document. The intention to create a security by way of a That clearly shows that the amount advanced is taken as a loan by the executants and a security for that loan is created in and by the said document. The use of the expression 'Pattom' when referring to the income fixed on the property and also as to how exactly it is to be adjusted is not conclusive, in my opinion, to show that the parties intended by the use of that expression to create a landlord-tenant relationship. It is only at the most a method adopted for working out the income from the properties and also mentioning as to how exactly it is to be adjusted in respect of the interest due on the amount 17,101 Rasis advanced by the executees and also for incurring expenses for payment of revenue and Michavaram. No doubt, after the mentioning of these adjustments, there is a recital that the 331/2 Paras of paddy must be paid as Pattom to the executants. This again will have to be read along with the other general recitals and it is only another mode of adjustment of income accruing from the properties. The expression 'Pattom' in this case need not at all trouble me because in more or less identical recitals namely, that the balance amount of rent will be paid to the executants of the document, the Supreme Court has held that notwithstanding such a recital about the payment of rent, the relationship is that of a mortgagor and mortgagee and not that of a lessor and lessee. 10. It is now desirable at this stage to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court, mentioned earlier. The question there was whether a document, which admittedly was styled as a Cowle, was a document creating a landlord-tenant relationship or whether it was a document creating a mortgagor-mortgagee relationship. It is not necessary to go into the various other clauses therein excepting to say that most of the material clauses which are found in the document before me, were also present in that document. That is, the executees there, were allowed to appropriate a part of the income accruing from the property towards the interest due on the amount which was charged on the properties and another portion of the amount was also permitted to be adjusted for payment of revenue and kist. That is, the executees there, were allowed to appropriate a part of the income accruing from the property towards the interest due on the amount which was charged on the properties and another portion of the amount was also permitted to be adjusted for payment of revenue and kist. Finally, there was a clause in that document that after payment of these amounts, the balance sum of Rs. 435-4-0, representing the rent, will have to be paid to the executants of that document. In spite of all these circumstances, their Lordships of the Supreme Court came to the conclusion that the document before them was an usufructuary mortgage and not a lease. I am only mentioning this to show that the emphasis laid upon the word "Pattom" occurring in this document in several places, will not assist the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. In my opinion, to quote the words of their Lordships of the Supreme Court: "The gist of the document was not a letting of the premises, with a rent reserved, but a mortgage of the premises with a small portion of the income of it made payable to the plaintiff." There is no scope for arguing that the suit transaction is anything else than an usufructuary mortgage, pure and simple, having no elements of a lease transaction. 11. C. R. P. fails and is dismissed with costs. Dismissed.