Judgment :- 1. In execution of the decree, which is for redemption of a'nadappupanayam' (Ext. D-1), the 2nd defendant contended that the transaction was really one of tenancy and not a mortgage and that therefore, in spite of the decree, he is entitled to immunity from eviction. The Courts below concurred to repel that contention. Hence this second appeal. 2. It is conceded that the question has now to be decided under the provisions of the Act I of 1964. The document is styled a'nadappupanayam'. The contention is that it is either a kanam or a lease within the meaning of Act I of 1964. Sub-section (22) of S.2 of the Act defines a kanam thus: "'Kanam' means the transfer for consideration, in money or in kind or in both, by a land lord 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." The general definition in the first part of the sub-section deals with the documents styled 'kanam' or 'kanapattam'. It is pertinent to note here that in the Act VII of 1963, repealed by the present Act, the corresponding expression was "whether described in the document evidencing the transaction as kanam or kanapattam or by any other name". The expression'or by any other name, has been omitted in the definition under the present Act I of 1964. It is then evident that the legislative intent in the present definition is only to cover transactions which are described in the relative document as a kanam or a kanapattam, and not others. That view appears to get added strength from the latter part of the definition, which covers transactions styled as Otti, karipanayam, panayam, nerpanayam or by any other name. The suit transaction, evidenced by Ext. D-1, does not come under either part of the definition under the first part as it is styled a'nadappupanayam' and under the latter part as there is no provision for or proof of renewal. 3. The "argument that it amounts to a lease is based on the facts (i) there is no express charge for the amount advanced, (ii) what is payable to the executant by the grantee is called 'pattamicham' or residual rent, (iii) no right to claim back the advance is expressed in the deed, and (iv) customary dues as 'onakazcha', reminiscent of the landlord-tenant relationship has been included therein. In my view, these facts are not conclusive of the transaction being a lease only. A provision for 'onakazcha' is not a peculiarity of leases. In most transactions, short of absolute alienations, executed by jenmis, particularly of the Namboodiri community, a provision for customary dues by way of 'Kazchas' is a common feature. It is in variably so in kanams executed by jenmis. A provision for 'onakazcha' is not a peculiarity of leases. In most transactions, short of absolute alienations, executed by jenmis, particularly of the Namboodiri community, a provision for customary dues by way of 'Kazchas' is a common feature. It is in variably so in kanams executed by jenmis. The fact that a charge for the advance has not been expressly stipulated or that a right to claim back the amount is not expressed in the deed would not militate against the document being a mortgage, when it has been expressly styled a 'riadappupanayam' and its operative words are to hold the property as a mortgagee. The advance amount is called in more than one place in the document as and 'otti' in Travancore, where the transaction took place, is well understood as a possessory mortgage with a personal covenant to repay. The characterisation of the advance as HanbA°w therefore implies a clear indication that it represents a mortgage-debt charged on the property with a personal covenant for repayment. 4. Nor does the use of the expression "pattamicham" seem to affect the construction of the deed. By definition in the Transfer of Property Act even a usufructuary mortgage may provide for payment of a part of the rents and profits of the property to the mortgagor. The stipulation in the deed in question only estimates the rents and profits of the property and provides for appropriation of part thereof by the mortgagee for interest on his advance and for payment of the balance to the mortgagor. The provision, being quite consistent with a mortgage of the property, cannot be decisive of its being a lease. 5. In the result, the contention that the transaction is either a kanam or a lease does not appear to be correct. The second appeal fails and is dismissed; but I make no order as to costs here. Leave granted. Dismissed.