JUDGMENT Balakrishna Menon, J. 1. Defendants 8 to 12 are the appellants. The suit is for redemption of Ext. A1 mortgage, dated 29th September, 1942 executed by the Pazhayath Mana represented by the 21st defendant, in favour of the Vengattur Mana represented by the 22nd defendant for Rs. 2,000. The illom of the mortgage assigned its mortgage interest in the suit property to the Chondath Tarwad of defendants 1 to 20 as per Ext. P2, dated 16th August, 1945. The mortgagor illom granted a subsequent mortgage Ext. A2, dated 30th January, 1967 to the plaintiff authorising him to redeem the suit property from the Chondath Tarwad of defendants 1 to 20. The present suit is filed by the plaintiff for redemption of the mortgage and for recovery of possession of the suit property. Since there was a suit O.S. No. 91 of 1957, Sub Court, Palghat, for partition of the Chondath Tarwad of defendants 1 to 20 pending at the time when the present suit was instituted, all the members of the Chondath Tarwad were impleaded as defendants 1 to 20 representing the mortgagee's interest in the suit property. The main contention on behalf of the defendants is that Ext. A1 evidence a kanam and not a mortgage and hence defendants are entitled to fixity of tenure under the Kerala Land Reforms Act. The trial Court dismissed the suit holding that Ext. A1 creates a kanam tenure and the defendants are entitled to fixity under S.13 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. In appeal, the lower appellate court has reversed the decision of the trial Court and on its finding that Ext. A1 is a redeemable mortgage has passed a preliminary decree for redemption of the mortgage on payment of the mortgage amount and value of improvements fixed at Rs. 22,967.73. It is against this decree of the lower appellate court that defendants 8 to 12 have come up in Second Appeal. 2. The Second Appeal is admitted on two questions of law formulated by this Court at the time of admission. The first question is as to whether a provision for payment of the jenmi's dues from out of the pattam fixed under the document will amount to a stipulation for payment of Michavaram within the meaning of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. 3. The first question is as to whether a provision for payment of the jenmi's dues from out of the pattam fixed under the document will amount to a stipulation for payment of Michavaram within the meaning of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. 3. It is the admitted case of both parties that the subject matter of mortgage under Ext. A1 is a building and its appurtenant site, which was already outstanding on mortgage with one Narayanan alias Thuppan Namboodiri of the mortgage illom. The illom of the mortgagor has only anubhavam rights in the land under Guruvayoor Devaswom. The rental yield of the property is fixed at Rs. 120 per annum from out of which the mortgagee is directed to pay sircar tax to the jenmi Guruvayoor Devaswom and also all additional taxes that may be levied on the property. The entire balance income is directed to be appropriated by way of interest on the mortgage amount. The total amount due to the prior mortgagee is fixed at Rs. 4,154.00. The mortgage amount of Rs. 2,000 under Ext. A1 is reserved for payment to the prior mortgagee, and for the balance amount due under the prior mortgage the mortgagor illom had executed another mortgage of some other property to the prior mortgagee Narayanan alias Thuppan Namboodiri, on the same day as Ext. A1 was executed. There is no michavaram payable to the mortgagor after payment of tax due to the Government. The document is itself a kaivasapanayadharam. There is a provision for sale of the mortgagor's interest in the property for enforcement of the mortgage. A provision for payment of sircar tax to the ultimate jenmi Guruvayoor Devaswom under whose jema the property stands cannot be construed as a provision for payment of michavaram. The document itself is executed for partial discharge of a prior encumbrance charged on the property. There is no element of lease in Ext. A1 mortgage. The relationship between the parties as can be clearly seen from Ext. A1 is that of a debtor and creditor. The transaction evidenced by Ext. A1 is only a mortgage and not a kanam as contended by the learned counsel for the appellant. There is no element of lease in Ext. A1 mortgage. The relationship between the parties as can be clearly seen from Ext. A1 is that of a debtor and creditor. The transaction evidenced by Ext. A1 is only a mortgage and not a kanam as contended by the learned counsel for the appellant. In the decision of the Supreme Court in Kuttappu v. Bhargavi and others ( AIR 1977 SC 105 ) it is stated thus in Para.9: "The trial court held the document to be a mortgage whereas the High Court held it to be a lease. It is enough to point out that the trial court was wrong in holding that the transferee was to utilise the amount of Rs. 3,155 for paying the land revenue. On the other hand, the document stated that this amount of fixed rent was to be paid annually in addition to the Government revenue which the transferee was required to pay. This feature of payment of rent, in this case, tilts the balance in favour of construing the document as a lease, coupled with the fact that the essence of a mortgage being the transfer of immovable property as security for the debt is conspicuous by its absence in the detailed enumeration of the terms. Further, as stated earlier, there is no right to sell the property in case the debt is not repaid. There is also nothing to show that the enjoyment of the usufruct was intended to wipe out the debt in the long period of occupation." On a perusal of the document in the light of the decision referred to above, there cannot be any doubt that Ext. A1 evidences a mortgage transaction and it is not a kanam within the meaning of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. 4. On question No. 1 raised at the time of admission of the Second Appeal, my answer is that there is nothing due to the ultimate jenmi as per the terms of Ext. A1 document. The provision for payment of land revenue to the ultimate jenmi cannot be construed as a provision for payment of jenmi's dues. The first question formulated in the memorandum of second appeal does not therefore arise for consideration in the Second Appeal. A1 document. The provision for payment of land revenue to the ultimate jenmi cannot be construed as a provision for payment of jenmi's dues. The first question formulated in the memorandum of second appeal does not therefore arise for consideration in the Second Appeal. On the second question as to whether it is an invariable rule that the element of enjoyment should also be present to construe a document to be a kanam my answer is that in respect of transactions covered by clause (b) of S.2(22) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act it is necessary to prove that the transaction is for enjoyment to construe the same as a kanam within the meaning of the Act. I have already found that the transaction Ext. A1 is for securing a loan, and not for enjoyment of the property. Both the questions raised at the time of admission of the Second Appeal are therefore answered against the appellants. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant Sri Kochupappu Achan has raised a further question that defendants 1 and 2 the erstwhile karnavan and the seniormost anandiraven of the Chondath Tarwad died during the pendency of the suit and their legal representatives were not impleaded either in the suit or in the appeal against the decree dismissing the suit. 6. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-first respondent submits that the plaintiff is prepared to pay the entire price for redemption of the mortgage to the mortgagees already on record and he does not seek any relief against the legal representatives of defendants 1 and 2. In the decision of the Supreme Court in Chhaganlal K. Mehta v. P. N. Haribhai ( 1982 (1) SCC 223 ), it is stated at page 229: "It is a well recognised principle that even if all the mortgagees are not before the court in a suit filed by the mortgagor for redemption of the property, but the mortgagor is prepared to pay the entire amount due at the foot of the mortgage to such mortgagees as are before the court and gives up his right under the mortgage as against those mortgagees who are not before the court, the court can pass a decree for redemption directing that the entire mortgage amount should be paid to the mortgagees who are actually before the court. This principle was recognised in a Full Bench decision in Motilal Yadav v. Samal Bechar (AIR 1950 Bom. 466). If one of the defendants in a suit dies and his heirs are not brought on record the suit certainly would abate as against that party. The suit, however, could not abate as against the other surviving defendants." Since the plaintiff is prepared to pay the entire price for redemption to the mortgagees on record and gives up his right to relief against the deceased defendants 1 and 2, I see no impediment in confirming the decree for redemption as against the surviving mortgagees. There can however be no doubt that the suit as against defendants 1 and 2 has abated and no relief can be granted against those defendants or their legal representatives who are not brought on record in these proceedings. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant Sri Kochupappu Achan submits that the mortgagees' interest under Ext. A1 was got assigned by the Chondath Tarwad of defendants 1 to 20 and merely for the reason of the filing of a suit for partition of the properties of the said tarwad, it cannot be said that the integrality of the mortgage was disrupted and since the mortgagee is only the tarwad whose interests have devolved on all its members, the entire suit abates on the death of defendants 1 and 2 whose legal representatives are not brought on record. It is true by virtue of Ext. B2 assignment the tarwad of defendants 1 to 20 acquired the mortgage rights under Ext. A1. The tarwad itself got disrupted on account of the institution of the suit for partition O.S. No. 91 of 1957 and the mortgagees' interests in the property have devolved on all the members of the tarwad in tenancy in common. The mortgage interest under Ext. A1 will also be the subject of partition in the final decree in O.S. No. 91 of 1957, and if it is allotted to any of the sharers among defendants 3 to 20, they will be bound by the preliminary decree for redemption passed in this suit. There is therefore no substance in the plea raised by the learned counsel that the integrality of the mortgage under Ext. A1 is not disrupted and on the death of the two members of the erstwhile tarwad, the entire suit will abate. There is therefore no substance in the plea raised by the learned counsel that the integrality of the mortgage under Ext. A1 is not disrupted and on the death of the two members of the erstwhile tarwad, the entire suit will abate. The result, therefore, is, I confirm the decision of the lower appellate court and dismiss the Second Appeal. I make it clear that the suit in so far as it relates to defendants 1 and 2 has abated and no relief is granted against those defendants. There will be no order as to costs in this Second Appeal.