Judgment :- 1. The appellant is the 2nd defendant. 2. The suit is for redemption of Ext. B1 Panayakacheet dated 17-1-1921, with arrears and future Purappad payable thereunder. Question having been raised as to the nature of transaction embodied in Ext. B1, as to whether it is a redeemable mortgage or an irredeemable kanom, the courts below have concurred in finding it to be a possessory mortgage, and in that view allowed redemption and recovery of the property on payment of the Panayam amount. The correctness of that finding is canvassed in this Second Appeal. This appeal was stayed under the Kerala Act I of 1957 which remained in force till 15-2-1961 when the Kerala Agrarian Relations Act, IV of 1961 (hereinafter called the Act) came into force with a direction in its S.95 that all appeals, suits, etc. stayed under the former Act may be disposed of in accord-dance with the provisions of the latter Act. 3. S.9 of the Act provides: Right to prove real nature of transaction. (1) Notwithstanding anything in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Central Act I of 1872), or in any other law for the time being in force, any person interested in any land situate in Malabar may plead, adduce evidence and prove that a transaction purporting to be a mortgage, otti, karipanayam, panayam or nerpanayam of that land is not in fact such a transaction but a transaction by way of kanam, kanamkuzhikanam, kuzhikanam, verumpattam or other lease, under which the transferee is entitled to fixity of tenure in accordance with the provisions of S.6 and to the other rights of a tenant under this Act. (2) " 4. Thus, even though a document is expressed to be a Panayakacheet or a deed a mortgage, it is open to the parties to prove that it is not really a mortgage as it purports to be in its expression, but a Kanom as defined in the Act entitling the transferee to fixity of tenure conceded to tenants under the Act. For this, it need only be shown that the transaction embodied in the document does satisfy all the incidents required for a Kanom by the definition of the Act. 5. For this, it need only be shown that the transaction embodied in the document does satisfy all the incidents required for a Kanom by the definition of the Act. 5. The definition of Kanom in S.2 (18) of the Act which, so far as relates to the area in which the suit property is situate, is virtually the same as that in the Malabar Tenancy Act of 1929 as amended by the Act XXXIII of 1951, reads as follows: "'kanam' means the transfer for consideration in money or in kind or in both, by a landlord of an interest in specific immovable property to another for the latter's enjoyment, whether described in the document evidencing the transaction as kanom or kanapattom, the incidents of which transfer include. (a) a right in the transferee to hold the said property liable for the consideration paid by him or due to him; (b) the liability of the transferor to pay to the transferee interest on such consideration unless otherwise agreed to by the parties; and (c) payment of michavaram, or customary dues or renewal on the expiry of any specified period, and, in areas in the State other than Malabar, includes such transfer of interest in specific immovable property which is described in the document creating the transaction as Otti, Karipanayam, Panayam, Nerpanayam or by any other name and which has the incidents specified in items (a) and (b) above and also the following incidents: - (i) renewal on the expiry of any specified period; and (ii)payment of customary due: Provided that kanapattom or any other demise governed by the Travancore Jenmi and Kudiyan Act of 1071 or the Kanom Tenancy Act, 1955, shall not be deemed to be a kanom. Explanation - For the purpose of this clause, in a case where there has been no stipulation in the document evidencing the transaction for renewal on the expiry of any specified period, but there has been a renewal or payment of renewal fees, it shall be deemed that there had been a provision for such renewal in the document." 6. Explanation - For the purpose of this clause, in a case where there has been no stipulation in the document evidencing the transaction for renewal on the expiry of any specified period, but there has been a renewal or payment of renewal fees, it shall be deemed that there had been a provision for such renewal in the document." 6. The property involved in this case being situate in Malabar the transaction would be a kanom if it satisfies the four incidents mentioned in the earlier part of the above-said definition, namely: (1) the transfer of an interest in a specific immovable property for a consideration in money or in kind or in both by the landlord to another for the latter's enjoyment; (2) a right in the transferee to hold the property, liable for the consideration paid by him; (3) the liability of the transferor to pay to the transferee interest on such consideration unless otherwise agreed to by the parties; and (4) payment of michavaram, or customary dues or renewal fee on the expiry of any specific period. 7. Ext. B1 (translated in English) read: "The said properties were demised in kanom right to you and to your daughter Lakshmi (since deceased) under a Kanakacheet, dated 21st March 1903 on a kanom of Rs. 20 and subject to a pattam of 28 paras of paddy and a purappad of 10 paras of paddy and rupee one for 'Nai Vilakku' after deducting the interest and assessment amount from the pattam, and the properties are being held under that kanakacheet. I have hereby mortgaged to you the aforesaid two items of properties for a period of 12 years from today, after freeing them from the kanom right, on a panayam of the aforesaid rupees twenty (itself) and subject to a pattam of 28 paras of paddy and on an annual purappad of 10 paras of paddy, rupee one for 'Nai Vilakku and annas eight for the Ekadesi festival conducted in Krishnapuram, after deducting from the pattam, the interest on the mortgage amount, and all Government assessment including the sums due under the settlement and all expenses that may be necessary in connection with the survey. You shall, therefore, according to the aforesaid stipulation, pay the purappad of 10 paras of paddy annually, from the year 1097 M. E. (1921-22) onwards during the months of Kanni (September/October) and Makaram (January/February) duly transported, dried, winnowed, cleaned, and shall give measurement at the aforesaid 'para'; shall also pay rupee one and annas eight, and shall obtain receipts therefor Whenever the panayam amount is paid after the expiry of 12 years from today, you shall receive the same, and shall surrender the properties along with this panayam deed without raising any dispute." 8. It is clear from the above that all the requisite incidents of a kanom are found in this document. Firstly, a pattom (rent) of 28 parahs of paddy is fixed in the document as the return accountable by the transferee for his enjoyment of the land. It is not disputed that a lease for a fixed rent is a "transfer for enjoyment" of the property. The suit document when it fixes a pattom (rent) of 28 parahs of paddy per annum savours of a lease of the property. Secondly, there is the express recital that the transferee may hold the property till the amount is repaid to him by the landlord. That is one form of "holding the property liable for the amount" paid by him. Thirdly, interest on the amount advanced under the document is specifically provided to be deducted from the rent of the property. This becomes an otherwise agreement for "the payment of interest by the transferor to the transferee" within the moaning of the definition of a Kanom. And lastly, there is a provision for "periodical payment of michavaram" which is nothing but a residual rent as defined in the Act itself, though it is called Purappad in the document. Thus all the incidents of a Kanom as required by the definition in the Act are satisfied clearly by the recitals or provisions of Ext. B1. Hence the transaction embodied in it is only a kanom within the meaning of S.2 (18) of the Act, even though it is styled and drafted as a Panayakacheet or deed of mortgage only. Though the parties intended to transform the prior kanom of 1903 into a mortgage under Ext. B1. Hence the transaction embodied in it is only a kanom within the meaning of S.2 (18) of the Act, even though it is styled and drafted as a Panayakacheet or deed of mortgage only. Though the parties intended to transform the prior kanom of 1903 into a mortgage under Ext. B1 in 1921 and the landlord thought for a time that he had succeeded in avoiding fixity of tenure in his kanomdar, his object has been defeated by subsequent enactments that came in the wake of a multitude of such formal conversions and the very consequences that he wanted to escape been imposed on him with added force and rigour. It is pertinent to note in this connection that the nature of this document came for consideration before G. Kumara Pillai, J., in regard to the applicability of Kerala Act I of 1957 to this Second Appeal, when the learned judge hold it to be a Kanom only. 9. It is conceded that if Ext. B1 amounts to a kanom, the decree given by the courts below for recovery of the property covered by it cannot be sustained. I therefore reverse the decree of the courts below so far as it allows recovery of possession of the property from the defendants and dismiss the suit in that respect, without prejudice to the rights of the plaintiff, if any, under the provisions of the Act, to resume the property under conditions specified therein. 10. With regard to the arrears of Purappad and future purappad payable under the suit document, they are really in the nature of 'michavaram' within the meaning of the Act. It is provided in S.34 of the Act that all arrears of 'rent,' which expression by its definition in S.2 (45) of the Act includes michavaram, outstanding on 11th April 1957 "shall be deemed to be fully discharged" if payment of one year's dues is made within one year of the commencement of the Act, if the holding, as is in this case, be less than 5 acres of double crop nilam or its equivalent according to the reckoning of the Act. The Act only says that the rent or michavaram due upto 11- 4-1957 shall be deemed discharged if one or two or three years' dues, as the case may be according to the extent of the holding, be paid within a year of the commencement of the Act. It does not say what consequences are to follow a default in such payment. It can only be that, if discharge be not had as provided in S.34 of the Act, the existing obligations can be enforced in their entirety. It is therefore declared that the defendants would be entitled to the benefit of S.34 of the Act and that the arrears of purappad decreed for the period upto 11-4-1957 by the courts below can be recovered by the plaintiff only if the requisite payment is not made by the defendants within the time allowed by S.34 of the Act. 11. The Second Appeal is thus allowed. The plaintiff's prayer for recovery of the suit property is disallowed and the decree for purappad is declared subject to the provisions of S.34 of the Kerala Agrarian Relations Act, IV of 1961. The decree of the courts below will be modified accordingly. In the circumstances of this case, there will be no order as to costs in this Second Appeal. 12. No leave. AIlowed.