Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the transaction evidenced by the document created a mortgage or a lease/kanam.
Analysis: The applicable definition of kanam under Section 2(22) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1964 required, among other incidents, renewal on expiry of a specified period or payment of michavaram or customary dues. The document contained no provision for renewal and no stipulation for customary dues. The stipulation that the transferee would pay land revenue to the State did not amount to rent or michavaram payable to the grantor, particularly when no amount was directed to be paid out of any sum due to the grantor. The substantial proportion between the amount advanced and the value of the property, the liability to pay interest on the advance, the provision for surrender on repayment, the return of documents on redemption, and the surrounding conduct of the parties all indicated that the dominant object was security for money advanced. The true nature of the transaction had therefore to be determined from its terms and surrounding circumstances, and not from its nomenclature alone.
Conclusion: The transaction was a mortgage and not a lease or kanam, and the respondent was entitled to redeem and recover possession.