Judgment :- 1. In this Second Appeal by the defendant, the only contention pressed was, that Ext. V, 'nadappupanayam', of which Ext. E is the counterpart, does not evidence a mortgage as held by the Courts below. Before them, the appellant's contention which was negatived, was that it evidences not a mortgage, but a kanom. Before me the contention is, that the appellant is a 'tenant' within the definition in the opening part of S.2, sub-section [50], Clause [i] of the Kerala Agrarian Relations Act, 1960, being: "Any person who has paid or has agreed to pay rent or other consideration, for his being allowed by another, to possess and to enjoy the land of the latter." It is not the object of the Act to obliterate the distinction between a mortgage with possession and an arrangement of tenancy. If it were so, a mortgagee also might well have been mentioned in the list of inclusions in the aforesaid clause like 'kanamdar' etc. I might at once state, that it was not contended for the appellant, that a mortgagee in possession is necessarily a tenant within the meaning of the Act nor was it disputed, that the well-marked distinction between the two is that under a mortgage, the relationship is that of debtor and creditor whereas in an arrangement of tenancy the relationship is that of landlord and tenant. All that is necessary is to see, what is the relationship created under the document. Whatever be the state of the antecedent case law, it must now be taken as settled by the Supreme Court by the decision in Ramdhan Puri v. Bankey Bihari Saran, AIR. 1958 SC. 941, that "the only guiding rule 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." A learned judge of this Court has applied this rule in deciding a similar question in Ponnamma v. Devassia,1959 KLT 854. Ext. V has recited, that an amount of Rs. 500 was received thereunder on the security of the property conveyed on'panayam' with possession, to pay oft prior debts. In the concluding part, it was stipulated that the property would be redeemed on the expiry of the term of 6 years on payment of the mortgage amount. Ext. V has recited, that an amount of Rs. 500 was received thereunder on the security of the property conveyed on'panayam' with possession, to pay oft prior debts. In the concluding part, it was stipulated that the property would be redeemed on the expiry of the term of 6 years on payment of the mortgage amount. Essentially, this evidences a borrowing of Rs. 500/- on the security of the property. There is also a stipulation in Ext. V, for the payment to the executant of an annual sum towards Government tax, michavaram and 'Onakazcha'. This provision is not necessarily inconsistent with a mortgage, though the provision for the payment of 'Onakazcha' is more common in the case of lease or of kanom transactions. The fact that the person who took Ext. V was allowed to appropriate the balance of the yield of the property for himself, which might work out at more than the usual or ordinary rate of interest, is not sufficient to override the essential feature of the transaction. As has been held in S. A. 146 of 1961, decided by a single judge of this Court, the execution of a'marupat' Ext. E, does not, as contended, necessarily spell a lease rather than a mortgage. On the above grounds, I agree with the lower Courts in holding, that the relationship evidenced by Ext. V is that of mortgagor and mortgagee. No other point was raised. The Second Appeal is dismissed with costs. Allowed.