Mortgage deed or lease: instrument construed as security for debt, not tenancy, on its terms and surrounding context.

Ex. 25 was construed as a mortgage deed rather than a lease by reading its terms with prior authority on a similar instrument. The pre-existing debtor-creditor relationship, the creditor's right to appropriate the land's income towards liquidation of the debt, and the debtor's right to resume possession on expiry of the stated period all pointed to a mortgage arrangement. The absence of premium, rent, or a share of produce, together with the description of the document as a Valatdan Patta and its context under the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act, reinforced that the parties intended security for debt, not a tenancy. The appeal therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether Ex. 25 was a mortgage deed or a lease.

Analysis: The instrument was construed by comparing its terms with the earlier Full Bench decision on a closely similar deed. The debtor-creditor relationship pre-existed the document, the creditor was to appropriate the income of the land towards liquidation of the debt, and on expiry of the prescribed period the debtor was to resume possession. The absence of premium, rent, or share of produce, together with the description of the instrument as a Valatdan Patta and the context of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act, supported the conclusion that the parties intended a mortgage arrangement rather than a lease.

Conclusion: Ex. 25 was held to be a mortgage deed, not a lease, and the appeal failed.

---