The terms of the document* in this case show 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.
In Kundu v. Impichi 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.
Appeal dismissed.