Judgment :- 1. These second appeals, of which S. A. 548 of 1962 is by the 8th defendant and S. A, 583 of 1962 is by the 9th defendant, have arisen from the suit O. S.580 of 1120, which was instituted by the respondent, for redemption of a kanam, evidenced by the kanam deed Ext. B dated the 1st Vrischigom,1070, pursuant to which the appellants are in possession of the suit property. The first court dismissed the suit on the ground, that the demise by Ext. B is a kanapattam within the meaning of the Travancore Jenmi and Kudiyan Act, 1071, and is irredeemable and the learned Subordinate Judge in appeal allowed redemption, holding that it is neither such a kanapattam nor a kanam under the second part of the definition in S.2(18) of Kerala Act 4 of 1961 particularly applicable to the non-Malabar area of the State, if it may be so called, that Act having come into law at the time. 2. In these second appeals, the question arose at an early stage, whether having regard to the provisions of Kerala Act 7 of 1963, the hearing of the appeal was liable to be stayed, and this was answered in the affirmative by Mr. Justice P. T. Raman Nayar, who held inter alia, that Ext. B is a kanam as defined in the first part of the corresponding definition in S.3 (8) of that Act. After that Act was superseded by Kerala Act 1 of 1964, these appeals were posted for hearing and have been referred to us. 3. The case now falls to be decided under Kerala Act I of 1964. B is a kanam as defined in the first part of the corresponding definition in S.3 (8) of that Act. After that Act was superseded by Kerala Act 1 of 1964, these appeals were posted for hearing and have been referred to us. 3. The case now falls to be decided under Kerala Act I of 1964. The definition of 'kanam' is in S.2 (22), and is 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 person for the latter's enjoyment, whether described in the document evidencing the transaction as kanam or kanapattam, 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 evidencing the transaction as Otti, karipanayam. panayam, nerpanayam or by any other name and which has the incidents specified in sub-clauses (a) and (b) above and also the following incidents: (i) renewal on the expiry of any specified period; and (ii) payment of customary dues: Provided that kanapattam or any other demise governed by the Travancore Jenmi and Kudiyan Act of 1071 or the Kanam Tenancy Act, 1955, shall not be deemed to be a kanam. Explanation: For the purposes of this clause, 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;" That Ext. B is a transfer for consideration, of an interest in specific immovable property, and satisfies the requirements of clauses (a), (b) and (c) of the above definition, was not disputed. We are satisfied, that the transfer was not by way of security, despite the kanam amount, and was for enjoyment; this point was not contested before Mr. Justice Raman Nayar. In Ext. We are satisfied, that the transfer was not by way of security, despite the kanam amount, and was for enjoyment; this point was not contested before Mr. Justice Raman Nayar. In Ext. B, the transaction is described as a kanapattam. Ext. B therefore satisfies the first part of the definition and is a kanam, but it is not a kanam as defined in the second part, because there is no provision in it for the payment of customary dues. It was by applying this part of the definition, that the learned Subordinate Judge held that Ext. B is not a kanam, his view being, that the first part of the definition applied only to the Malabar area of the State. It was this contention that was repelled by Mr. Justice Raman Nayar under Act 7 of 1963, in which the definition was similar, but with a slight variation to be noticed in due course. 4. The question to decide is whether Ext. B, pertaining to non-Malabar area of the State, can be held to be a kanam within the first part of the definition, in other words, whether that part applies also to non-Malabar area. On a plain reading of the language of the Section and true understanding of its structure, there is no room for doubt whatever, that the first part of the definition applies without any limitation to the whole area with respect to which the legislature is competent to legislate, that is, the State, and that the second part, which accords a special treatment to non-Malabar area, is by way of inclusion or addition to what is already in the first part. If the two areas were intended to be treated wholly distinctly and separately for the purpose of the definition, we venture to think, that different language would have been employed, as perhaps, in S.17 of Kerala Act 29 of 1958. It seems to us, that the language of the definition affords no room for the view that the operation of the first part of it is limited to Malabar area. 5. We agree that the statute must receive a harmonious construction at our hands. It seems to us, that the language of the definition affords no room for the view that the operation of the first part of it is limited to Malabar area. 5. We agree that the statute must receive a harmonious construction at our hands. Learned counsel contended, that the Words 'or by any other name' occurring in the second part of the definition, are of such wide amplitude as to include 'kanam' or 'kanapattam' mentioned in the first part and that so read, the second part is self-contained and exhaustive and excludes by implication the operation of the first part to non-Malabar area. We are by no means persuaded, that the words 'by any other name' must necessarily be so read. The words 'any other name' ordinarily mean, a name other than those specifically mentioned and it does not matter, that those names are distributed between the two parts of the definition, as in this case. The transactions known as 'kanam or kanapattam' are covered by the first part, those known as 'Otti' karipanyam, panayam, nerpanayam' are covered by the second part and it is not to be too readily supposed, that'any other name' because it occurs in the second part embraces, kanam or kanapattam as well. The definition is only one and entire. In Kerala Act 7 of 1963, the words 'or by any other name' found a place also in the first part, after the words 'kanam or kanapattam'. This introduced an anomaly, as pointed out by Mr. Justice Raman Nayar in his order of the 12th July, 1963, that "what is included by the second part which applies only to the non-Malabar area is only what already comes within the first part which applies to the whole State". Apparently noticing this anomaly, these words were excluded from the first part of the definition in Kerala Act 1 of 1964 and the anomaly has thereby ceased to exist. 6. But S.12(1) of Act 1 of 1964 does present some difficulty in this context. Apparently noticing this anomaly, these words were excluded from the first part of the definition in Kerala Act 1 of 1964 and the anomaly has thereby ceased to exist. 6. But S.12(1) of Act 1 of 1964 does present some difficulty in this context. For convenience, that provision may be extracted below: "Notwithstanding anything in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Central Act 1 of 1872) or in any other law for the time being in force, any person interested in any land may prove that a transaction purporting to be a mortgage, Otti, karipanayam, panayam, or nerpanayam of that land is in substance 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.13 and to the other rights of a tenant under this Act." This in effect provides, that a transaction purporting to be one of the kinds specified, may be proved to be in substance a transaction by way of kanam, kanamkuzhikanam, etc. - Whereas in respect of non-Malabar area the terms Otti, karipanayam, panayam and nerpanayam are specifically enumerated, and the term mortgage is comprised in the term 'any other name' in the second part of the definition of 'kanam', and are thus within the definition provided the other ingredients are present in respect of Malabar area, transactions bearing the names mentioned are not within the definition. So, the application of S.12(1) is particularly apposite to the Malabar area. Probably, it was for that reason, that the operation of the corresponding provision S.9 of Kerala Act 4 of 1961 was limited to lands situate in Malabar area. This may be redundant so far as non-Malabar area is concerned but that does not introduce any disharmony in construction. The application of S.12 (1) to the first part of the definition of 'Kanam' is a also not without some difficulty, because according to that part, the nomenclature 'kanam or kanapattam', to says the least is relevant. It appears to us, that the rule of harmonious construction should involve the consequence, that S.12(1) must be read as a proviso to the definition of kanam in S.2(2) and not that the first part of that definition be limited in its application to Malabar area. After all S.12(1) is an enabling provision relating to proof. 7. It appears to us, that the rule of harmonious construction should involve the consequence, that S.12(1) must be read as a proviso to the definition of kanam in S.2(2) and not that the first part of that definition be limited in its application to Malabar area. After all S.12(1) is an enabling provision relating to proof. 7. As regards the nomenclature 'kanam' or 'kanapattam', it is interesting to note what Mr. Justice Raman Nayar has said in second appeal 5 of 1962, a case decided under Kerala Act 4 of 1961, is which the provisions are similar: "It is true that before the Agrarian Relations Act, the law was not that, in the Malabar area, for a transaction to be a kanam it must be so called in the document effecting it. As pointed out by me in Hussain Thangal v. Ali (1961) II KLR. 653, in this as in the construction of all documents, the nomenclature is only an indication of the purport and is to be ignored if the terms of the document clearly spell a different transaction. Thus a transaction described in the document as a Kaivasapanayam could, if the terms made out a kanam, be construed as a kanam, and the purpose of S.22 of the Malabar Tenancy Act was not to get rid of the name used in the document, but to get rid of its purport. But, as I observed, in enacting the first part of the definition in S.2(18) of the Act, the legislature seems to have laboured under the misapprehension that, in the Malabar area, for a transaction to be a kanam it should have been so described in the document, and that it was only by reason of S.22 of the Malabar Tenancy Act (in place of which S.9 of the present Act was enacted) that a transaction not so described could be proved to be a kanam". This explains the terms 'kanam' and 'kanapattam' in the first part of the definition of 'kanam', which did not find a place in the corresponding definition in the Malabar Tenancy Act. 8. Mr. Justice Raman Nayar has taken the same view of the applicability of the first part of the corresponding definition in Act 4 of 1961 in S. A. 5 of 1962 and of the corresponding definition in Act 7 of 1963 in Damodaran v. Sankaranarayanan Namboothiripad 1964 KLT. 8. Mr. Justice Raman Nayar has taken the same view of the applicability of the first part of the corresponding definition in Act 4 of 1961 in S. A. 5 of 1962 and of the corresponding definition in Act 7 of 1963 in Damodaran v. Sankaranarayanan Namboothiripad 1964 KLT. 25; not to mention his order of the 12th July in this very case passed under Act 7 of 1963. We therefore come to the conclusion that Ext. B satisfies the requirements of a 'kanam' as defined in the first part of S.2(22) of Kerala Act 1 of 1964 and that the respondent is not entitled to a decree for eviction. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent stated before us, that the respondent has rights as a small holder under Act 1 of 1964. As to these, we express no opinion, but leave it to him to work out such rights, if any, in the appropriate proceedings. 10. In the result, the decree of the Subordinate Judge is set aside and the suit is dismissed; the courts below have not allowed costs, and in the nature of the questions raised, we direct the parties to bear their costs throughout. The memorandum of objection also is dismissed without costs. Allowed.