- (1.) In this revision Mr. M. C. Sridharan, learned counsel for the petitioner challenges the two orders of the subordinate courts granting relief to the respondent under S.11(6) of Act 31/58.
(2.) Two contentions have been taken before me by the learned counsel namely, (1) that the application that was filed before the learned Munsiff was by the assignees of the mortgagor and therefore the application was not maintainable; and (2) that, the construction placed by the two courts that the document in question Ext. A2 is not a kanam but an usufructuary mortgage is not correct. The stand taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner on these aspects is controverted by Mr. M. M. Abdul Khader, learned counsel for the contesting respondents.
(3.) One Chandu Asari executed on 17-7-46 a transaction evidenced by Ext. A2 in favour of one Cheriya Kunhimayan Haji and the petitioner what is purported to be a kanam. On the same date, there is no controversy that under Ext. A3 Chandu Asari took the properties on lease. Chandu Asari executed a gift of his rights in the property in favour of the applicants in O. P. 11/61 under Ext. A1 dated 23-11-54. Those assignees filed O. P. 11/61 before the learned Munsiff claiming relief under S.11(6) of Act 31/58 and for a declaration that the entire amount due under the mortgage and a lease back has been discharged as per the Act. It may be mentioned that according to those applicants the transaction is really one by way of an usufructuary mortgage and lease back attracting the provisions of S.11(6) of the Act.;