MANGALA KUNHIMINA UMMA & ORS. vs PUTHIVAVEOTTIL PARU AMMA & ORS.

The Supreme Court analyzed the nature of the document Ex. B-6, which purported to be a kanam under Section 2(22) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1964, to determine if it constituted a lease or a mortgage. The Court held that the mere description of the deed as kanam is not decisive; rather, the intrinsic intention of the parties and the terms of the document are critical. The absence of provisions for renewal and customary dues indicated that the transaction was a mortgage, not a lease, thus affirming the High Court's decision against the appellants' claim for redemption.