Judgment :- 1. This Second Appeal arises from a suit for redemption of a mortgage. The suit property was demised on 'Veppu' by the ancestor of the plaintiffs to one Syedalikutty under Ext. A-1 dated 25-8-1879. The rights of Syedalikutty have devolved on defendants 1 and 2. The first defendant contended that the transaction was not a possessory mortgage but a tenure in the nature of a lease and that the plaintiffs were not entitled to recover possession. The trial court upheld the plaintiffs' case and decreed the suit but on appeal by the first defendant the Subordinate Judge of Kozhikode reversed the decree and dismissed the suit holding that the transaction was a kanom-kuzhikanom as defined by the Malabar Tenancy Act. The plaintiffs have therefore preferred this second appeal. Ext. A-1 describes the transaction as a veppu. The property was outstanding on kanom with a stranger and the plaintiffs' grandfather had obtained a decree for recovery of possession with arrears of rent. The decree was also assigned to Syedalikutty along with Ext. A-1. The consideration for Ext. Al was 1400 Fanams (Rs. 350) including the kanom amount of 250 Fanams. Ext. Al was for a term of sixty years. Syedalikutty was directed to execute the decree and recover possession on payment of the kanom amount and value of improvements. The question for decision is whether Ext. Al is a redeemable mortgage or a transaction in the nature of a lease. 3. The term'veppu' appears twice in the body of the document. It is stated that what is conveyed is veppu avakasom and that the party was to hold the land on veppu. This term was well-known in Malabar as designating a possessory mortgage. In Govindan Nair's Malabar Tenancy Act 'veppu' is described as one of the names under which'otti' is known in several parts of Malabar. In Moore's Malabar Law and Custom 'veppu' is described as exactly equivalent as 'otti.' It is not disputed that an otti is a, usufructuary mortgage. The learned Subordinate Judge observed: "There is no doubt that otti goes by different names in several parts of this district and that a veppu is redeemable in the absence of clear evidence to the contrary". It has already been stated that the property was outstanding on kanom when Ext. Al was executed. The learned Subordinate Judge observed: "There is no doubt that otti goes by different names in several parts of this district and that a veppu is redeemable in the absence of clear evidence to the contrary". It has already been stated that the property was outstanding on kanom when Ext. Al was executed. Though nomenclature by itself may not be conclusive in determining the nature of a transaction, the fact that the term 'veppu' was used in a document which describes the previous transaction as a 'kanom' is of some significance as it must have been used deliberately to distinguish it from kanom or kanom¬kuzhikanom. 4. The learned judge however held that the first defendant was entitled to renewal and he could not be evicted except in accordance with the provisions of the Malabar Tenancy Act. He based this conclusion on the following passage in Moore's Malabar law and Custom: "The next form of transfer is the otti, veppu or palisa madakkam which is a usufructuary mortgage, the interest on which almost, if not quite, extinguishes the usufruct, and in which nothing but a pepper-corn rent is reserved to the mortgagor. The mortgagee has all the rights of a kanom tenant, and in addition has the right of preemption if the landlord wishes to part with his freehold". This, if at all, should have led to the opposite conclusion. The learned author has stated how an otti differs from a kanom. The unreported decision in which a veppukanom deed came up for construction and which is also relied on can hardly support the view taken by the judge. 5. Counsel for the respondent sought to support the decision on the authority of two decisions Nidha Sah v. Murli Dhar (ILR. 25 All. 115) and Tulsi Ram v. Muna Kuar (AIR. 1937 Oudh 146). The wholesome rule that each case must be decided on its facts applies with greater force to a case in which the decision turns on the construction of the deed sought to be enforced. The provisions of the deeds in the two cases cited led the learned judge to hold that the same were not mortgages. The Supreme Court has laid down the law on the subject in Ramdhan Puri v. Bankey Bihari Saran (AIR 1958 SC. 941). The provisions of the deeds in the two cases cited led the learned judge to hold that the same were not mortgages. The Supreme Court has laid down the law on the subject in Ramdhan Puri v. Bankey Bihari Saran (AIR 1958 SC. 941). Relying on Ghosh on Mortgages, it is held: "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 a mortgage by whatever name it is called". Viewed in the light of this principle it is clear that Ext. Al cannot be treated as a lease or kanom¬kuzhikanom. The gist of the document is not a lease of the premises with rent reserved. A debtor and creditor relationship was created by the plaintiffs' grandfather borrowing Rs. 350/- from Syedalikutty. The interest on the sum and tax on the property were directed to be appropriated from the income. It was urged that there was neither an obligation to repay the debt at the end of the term nor a provision for redemption. The provision for redemption is implied in the clause which provided that till the end of the term the recovery of possession would not be sought ( HgnbmtXbpw Hgn,nimtXbpw ) Madhavan Nair, J., has pointed out in Idichandi Mathai v. Narayanan Unnithan (1961 KLT.13) that in a mortgage transaction it is not necessary that an express provision should be made for redemption or surrender of property on discharge of the mortgage amount. In my opinion the transaction cannot be viewed as anything except a redeemable otti. 6. The other points raised by the first defendant in his written statement were concurrently decided against him and do not arise for consideration. 7. Before closing I may observe that the parties are now governed by the Kerala Agrarian Relations Act (IV of 1961) and that Ext. Al will not come under any of the catagories of tenure in respect of which permanent occupancy has been conferred by the Act. 8. In the result, the second appeal is allowed, reversing the decree of the lower appellate court and restoring that of the trial court. In the circumstances of the case I make no order as to costs.