Madras High Court
Kunnummalthamasikum Nanthoth Ryru ... vs Kappalli Kanara Kurup on 11 October, 1921
Equivalent citations: (1922)42MLJ350, AIR 1922 MADRAS 185
JUDGMENT
1. The terms of the document in this case shown that the transaction is a mortgage; the person setting up that it is irredeemable should therefore prove it. The lower Courts have held on evidence that the defendant who claims the mortgage to be irredeemable has not established his plea.
2. In Kundu v. Imbichi I.L.R. 7 Mad. 442 a similar tenure called "Kaividuka othi" was held to be redeemable; our attention has not been drawn to any authorities or to any statements in books on Malabar Law to show that the tenure in question here "Neerozhikka Otti Kanom" is irredeemable. We must therefore hold it to be redeemable. The Second Appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.