Judgment :- 1. This is an appeal from the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge, Parur, confirming the judgment of the trial court which decreed the respondent's suit for redemption. The courts below held that Ext P2 document evidenced a redeemable mortgage and rejected the appellants's contention, which be raised in the course of the final decree proceedings, that be was a kanamdar entitled to fixity of tenure under S.13 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (the 'Act'). 2. Considering the nomenclature of Ext. P2, the total consideration received by the transferor, the extent of the property, the provision for bringing the property to sale, and other circumstances, the courts concluded that Ext P2 was nothing but a mortgage. 3. Shri Sankaranarayana Pillai appearing for the appellant submits that the judgment under appeal is vitiated by a substantial error of law. According to him the courts below erred in thinking that it was necessary to prove, in order to satisfy the definition of a 'kanam', that there was a transfer of interest for the purpose of enjoyment of the land Such purpose, counsel says, is presumed, and no proof of it is required, once the other ingredients of the statutory definition of 'kanam' under S.2(22) are found to be present in the transaction. This contention is apparently based on certain observations of this Court in Krishnan Nair v. Sivaraman Nambudiri 1967 KLT. 78 (FB). In that case this Court observed: "if a transaction clearly satisfies the definition of 'kanam' in all other respects and the only element remaining positively to be established is the essential element of the transfer being for the purpose of enjoyment, then, unless the contrary is shown, that element must also be regarded as satisfied and the transfer held to be a kanam. Thus, if the document evidencing the transaction calls it a kanam or kanapattam, and incident (c) of the incident's in the definition in S.2(22) obtains, it may safely be assumed, till the contrary is shown, that the transfer is for enjoyment and that the transaction is a kanam In the non-Malabar area, notwithstanding that the transaction is not labelled 'kanam' or 'kanapattam', it could be safely assumed that the transaction is a kanam if two of the three alternative incidents in clause (c), namely, payment of customary dues, and renewal on the expiry of a specified period, are present" (italics supplied). (See Para.16). 4. Referring to the above observation, counsel contends that the courts below allowed themselves to be misguided by embarking on an examination of the element of enjoyment which was totally unwarranted once it was found that the other ingredients of the definition of 'kanam' were present. 5. Counsel relies upon the further observation of this Court in Para.18 of that judgment. Stating that the transaction evidenced by a document which has described it otherwise than as a 'kanam' or 'kanapattam' cannot satisfy the definition of 'kanam' in the Malabar area, this Court remarked: "But that is not the end of the matter. For, if the transfer was for enjoyment of the land by the transferee, and the transferee has agreed to pay rent or other consideration for being allowed to possess and enjoy the land, he could come within the body of the definition of 'tenant' in S.2 (57) and would be entitled to fixity under S.13." 6. It is true that these observations in Krishnan Nair v. Sivaraman Nambudiri appear to lend some support to counsel's contention. But then it has to be remembered that that decision dealt with case governed by S.2 (22) of the Act as it stool then. That provision was replaced by the present S.2 (22) which is not identical. 7. I shall first refer to S.2 (22) which was considered in Krishnan Nair v. Sivaraman Nambudiri: "2. But then it has to be remembered that that decision dealt with case governed by S.2 (22) of the Act as it stool then. That provision was replaced by the present S.2 (22) which is not identical. 7. I shall first refer to S.2 (22) which was considered in Krishnan Nair v. Sivaraman Nambudiri: "2. Definitions - In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires by a (22) 'kanam' means the transfer for consideration, in money or in kind or in both, 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: 000 (italics supplied) 8. An essential ingredient of that provision is the transfer of an interest in land for the purpose of enjoyment. And yet, as this Court held in Krishnan Nair v. Sivaraman Nambudiri, this essential ingredient, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, is presumed to be present in a transaction which is evidenced by a document and described as a 'kanam' or 'kanapattam', provided the other incidents mentioned in the clause are present: namely, the incidents in sub-clauses (a) and (b) and any one of the alternative incidents in sub-clause (c) of clause (22) of S.2. For this purpose, in regard to the non-Malabar area, the label is unimportant provided the incidents in sub-clauses (a) and (b) and two of the three alternative incidents in sub-clause (c) are present, namely, renewal on the expiry of any specified period and payment of customary dues. 9. For this purpose, in regard to the non-Malabar area, the label is unimportant provided the incidents in sub-clauses (a) and (b) and two of the three alternative incidents in sub-clause (c) are present, namely, renewal on the expiry of any specified period and payment of customary dues. 9. The old definition was substituted by the new definition by Act 35 of 1969 which came into force on 1 11970. The present definition under S.2(22) of the Act reads as follows: "[22] 'kanam' means [a] the transfer for consideration, in money or in kind or in both, by a person of an interest in specific immovable property to another person, and described in the document evidencing the transaction as kanam or kanapattam, the incidents of which transfer include [i] a right in the transferee to hold the said property liable for the consideration paid by him or due to him; [ii] the liability of the transferor to pay to the transferee interest on such consideration unless otherwise agreed to by the parties; and [iii] payment of michavaram or customary dues, or renewal on the expiry of any specified period; or [b] the transfer for consideration in money or in kind or in both by a person of an interest in specific immovable property to another person for the latter's enjoyment, whether described in the document evidencing the transaction as Otti, karipanayam, panayam, pattapanayam, nerpanayam or by any other name, and which has the incidents specified in sub-clauses [a] [i] and [a] [ii] and also one or more of the following incidents: [A] renewal on the expiry of any specified period; [B] payment of michavaram; [C] payment of customary dues: [italics supplied] 10. The present definition, unlike the earlier definition, has done away with the distinction between Malabar and non-Malabar area. The definition is now cast in two parts: sub-clause (a) relates to transactions labelled as 'kanam' or 'kanapattam'; and sub-clause (b) relates to transactions which are not so labelled. In the case of the former, there is no need to prove the purpose for which the interest in land is transferred. The definition is now cast in two parts: sub-clause (a) relates to transactions labelled as 'kanam' or 'kanapattam'; and sub-clause (b) relates to transactions which are not so labelled. In the case of the former, there is no need to prove the purpose for which the interest in land is transferred. If the incidents mentioned in sub-clauses (a) (i) and (a) (ii) and any one of the three alternative incidents in sub-clause (a) (iii) are present in a transaction involving a transfer of interest for consideration in money or in kind or both and described in the document evidencing the transaction as a'kanam' or 'kanapattam', such transfer of interest is presumed to be for the purpose of enjoyment of the land. The mere absence of a reference to the purpose under sub-clause (a) of clause (22) does not mean that the definition of 'kanam' has done away with the essential ingredient of enjoyment which confers upon 'kanam' the status of 'tenancy' [See S.2 (57) read with S.2 (22)] 'Enjoyment' is taken for granted, and no proof of the same is required, in the case of such a transfer of interest coming within the meaning of sub-clause (a) of clause (22) of S.2. This interpretation of the provision fits in harmoniously with the observation in Krishnan Nair's case. After all when parties have, with open eyes, entered into a transaction with the correct label attached to it and all but one of the basic requirements of 'kanam' are satisfied, the legislature has, in the light of what is stated in Krishnan Nair's case and with a view to making it easier for a kanamdar to prove his status, done away with the need to establish enjoyment. If the appellant's case had come within sub-clause (a) of clause (22), i. e., if the document in question had been styled as a 'kanam' or 'kanapattam', counsel's submission on the point would have been correct. 11. But the case of the appellant does not come within sub-clause (a): it comes within sub-clause (b), for the document in question is styled as a mortgage. The definition of 'kanam' under sub-clause (b) of clause (22) specifically refers to the ingredient of enjoyment. 11. But the case of the appellant does not come within sub-clause (a): it comes within sub-clause (b), for the document in question is styled as a mortgage. The definition of 'kanam' under sub-clause (b) of clause (22) specifically refers to the ingredient of enjoyment. The legislature has intended that a person who is a party to a document bearing the label of Otti, karipanayam, panayam, pattapanayam, nerpanayam and the like must discharge the burden of proving that the transaction is in fact a'kanam' or 'kanapattam' before he can claim fixity under S.13. This he can do by specifically proving that the transfer of interest in the land is for the purpose of enjoyment of the land. In other words, in the case of a document styled as a mortgage or by any other name than'kanam' or 'kanapattam' and thus falling under sub-clause (b), such as in the present case, the person claiming to be a kanamdar must prove that the transfer of interest in the land is for consideration and for enjoyment and further that the incidents mentioned under sub-clauses (a) (i) and (a) (ii) and at least one of the alternative incidents is sub-clause (a) (iii) are present. Enjoyment is thus the additional element which has to be proved under sub-clause [b] of clause [22] of S.2. Once the definition of 'kanam' is in terms satisfied, it does not make any difference if the transaction is of a composite nature involving an element of mortgage also, so long as such element is not the dominant element. (Velayudhan Vivekanandan v. Ayyappan Sadasivan, 1975 KLT.1 F.B.) 12. To sum up, the test to be applied to identify 'kanam' in the case of a transaction which is not described as a 'kanam' or 'kanapattam', but as a mortgage or by any other name, is the test of enjoyment referred to in sub-clause (b) of clause (22) of S.2. If this test is satisfied and the other incidents mentioned in the definition are present, the mask is removed and the true face of kanam is revealed. This was in fact the test applied by this Court in Raman Pillay Kesavan Pillay v. Kochukunju Sankaran,1972 KLT. 589 (F.B.). This test is not satisfied in the present case. 13. If this test is satisfied and the other incidents mentioned in the definition are present, the mask is removed and the true face of kanam is revealed. This was in fact the test applied by this Court in Raman Pillay Kesavan Pillay v. Kochukunju Sankaran,1972 KLT. 589 (F.B.). This test is not satisfied in the present case. 13. Counsel for the appellant alternatively submits that the appellant should be given an opportunity at this stage to adduce evidence in support of his contention that the transfer was for enjoyment of the property. I would have gladly acceded to the request had the appellant been denied any such opportunity. The appellant pleaded kanam for the first time after the preliminary decree was passed. The question was considered and rejected by the trial court, but on appeal the case was remanded to the trial court for a fresh consideration of that question. Neither before nor after the remand did the appellant adduce any evidence in support of this contention As the courts below rightly pointed out, the appellant had full opportunity to substantiate his contention. But he did not do so In the circumstances I would not be justified is ordering a fresh remand for the purpose. 14. The courts below on the basis of the wording of the document and the attendant circumstances concluded that Ext. P2 evidenced a mortgage. The various elements relevant to the consideration of the question as laid down in Hussain Thangal v Ali, 1961 KLT.1033, Para.6, were carefully examined by the courts in coming to the conclusion that Ext. P2 was a mortgage. The courts found that Ext. P2 was styled as a mortgage. The area covered by Ext P2 was 92 cents of single crop paddy land in Parur The document is of 1955 and the consideration for which the transfer was effected was Rs 700/- Considering the value of property in the locality at the relevant time, the courts held that the ratio which the consideration advanced bore to the value of the property transferred was high, thereby indicating a loan. The courts further found that no customary dues were payable. There was also a provision for recovery of money by sale of the property as indicated by the expression: On the basis of such compelling evidence the courts, in my view, rightly concluded that Ext. The courts further found that no customary dues were payable. There was also a provision for recovery of money by sale of the property as indicated by the expression: On the basis of such compelling evidence the courts, in my view, rightly concluded that Ext. P2 was nothing short of a redeemable mortgage and that there was no substance in the appellant's contention to the contrary. 15. The appeal is accordingly dismissed 16.There is a cross-objection regarding mesne profits I see no substance in the contentions raised. It it also dismissed. In the circumstances of the case the parties will bear their respective costs.