Judgment :- 1. This appeal raises only one question and that relates to the construction of the two suit documents, namely, Exts. Al and B1. The plaintiffs, who are the appellants before me, claimed that those documents created a possessory mortgage, whereas the defendant-respondents contended that the documents were kanom kuzhikanom leases. The lower court agreed with the contention of the defendants and dismissed the suit and the plaintiffs appeal. 2. Ext. Al bears the date 26th March and Ext. B1 27th March, 1900. Both the documents are between the same parties and appear to have been registered on the same date. Ext. Al is styled kanom and the consideration for the document is Rs. 5,000. The document recites that the transaction has been entered into to pay off a decree debt against the tarwad of the executants. In the operative portion of the document there is a further recital that the parambas with the improvements and farm-houses thereon have been given possession of for a term of 24 years in "kettiadakamkanom". The transferees have been directed to pay the Government revenue and to appropriate the income from the properties towards interest of the kanom amount. Then there is a further recital regarding the number of trees existing on the properties and the recital continues that if the transferees plant further kuzhikoors the transferors will pay their value at the time of surrender by the transferees. 3. Ext. B1 is also styled a kanom document, the kanom amount advanced under the document being Rs. 600/- and the properties covered by it being the same as those in Ext. Al. The document recites that the properties have already been given in kanom and kuzhikanom right the previous day. In this document also the necessity for taking the kanom amount has been recited as the payment of the decree debt already mentioned. In the operative portion of this document it is further recited that the properties are given in kanom right and the transferees are authorised to appropriate whatever interest they may get from the income of the properties after adjusting the interest on the amount advanced on the previous day and both the documents are directed to be redeemed together. It may be mentioned in this connection that the properties covered by these documents are parambas having an extent of 18 acres. 4. If, both the documents, namely Ext. It may be mentioned in this connection that the properties covered by these documents are parambas having an extent of 18 acres. 4. If, both the documents, namely Ext. Al and B1, are to be construed together and the intention of the parties to be gathered from both of them, it is absolutely clear that the parties contemplated the creation of a kanom kuzhikanom tenure and did not intend to create a possessory mortgage. But Mr. Surianarayana Iyer, the appellants' learned advocate, contends that Ext. Al should be interpreted on the basis of the recitals contained therein and not with reference to the recitals in a subsequent document. He further contends that if this course is adopted it will have to be held that Ext. Al is only a usufructuary mortgage. In this connection, he invites my attention to the meaning of the term "kettiadakamkanom" given in the Glossary of Terms in Sundara Aiyar's Malabar & Aliyasantana Law, which is as follows: "Kettiadakamkanom - Usufructuary mortgage in which rent is absorbed by interest but with no pre-emption." The learned counsel further brings to my notice the meaning of the aforesaid term given in the Malayalam-English Dictionary by Tobias Zacharias as usufructuary mortgage. It is well settled that in the construction of such documents it is the intention of the parties to the documents that has to be gathered. The term "kettiadaki" means "took possession" as given in the same dictionary. So that, to construe the term "kettiadakamkanom" as a usufructuary mortgage simpliciter without any elements of a lease or kanom is not justified. It is well-known that every kanom has some elements of the usufructuary mortgage also but the element of the lease predominates. Therefore, I am not inclined to accept the contention that, since the expression used is "kettiadakamkanom", the document has necessarily to be construed as a possessory mortgage. The further argument of the appellants' learned counsel is that the recitals in the document do not indicate the creation of a kanom kuzhi-kanom tenure, for, according to him, the recitals do not indicate that the purpose for which the transfer was made was for planting fruit bearing trees on the property. The further argument of the appellants' learned counsel is that the recitals in the document do not indicate the creation of a kanom kuzhi-kanom tenure, for, according to him, the recitals do not indicate that the purpose for which the transfer was made was for planting fruit bearing trees on the property. In this connection, it will be interesting to note the meaning of kanom kuzhikanom given in Sundara Aiyer's book; the learned author gives the meaning of kuzhikanom as a lease for improving the land, no rent being ordinarily paid. The definitions of kuzhikanom and kanom kuzhikanom incorporated in the Malabar Tenancy Act, though use the expression "for the purpose of planting fruit bearing trees", have only given statutory recognition to the meaning of the term "kuzhikanom", as understood already, as a lease for improving the land. In Ext. Al the recital to the effect that the transferors will pay the value of the kuzhikoors to the transferees at the time of surrender indicates clearly that the transfer was intended or was for the purpose of improving the land. Therefore, Ext. Al is a kanom kuzhi-kanom arrangement. If the intention of the parties is to be gathered from their subsequent dealings, there is over-whelming evidence to support this finding; for example, Exs. B-2, B-5, B-8, B9 and B-10, ranging over a period of 23 years, unequivocally recite that the transaction covered by Exts. Al and B1 is a kanom kuzhikanom. It may also be noted that recitals are significantly absent in Ext. Al, which create any security for the amount advanced or which indicate a right to recover or the mode for realising the amount by the transferees. 5. The foregoing discussion leads to the indubitable conclusion that the transaction is a kanom kuzhikanom and not a possessory mortgage. Therefore the decision of the lower court is upheld and the appeal is dismissed with costs.