Innes and Kernan, JJ.
1. We think that the clause to the effect that the property should be surrendered whenever the money is ready is not sufficient to show that it 'was the intention of the parties to enter upon a contract of mortgage differing in its incidents from the ordinary kanam mortgage whereby the mortgagee has a period of twelve years' occupancy before he can be redeemed.
2. In a document in which the word kanam is used to express the nature of the engagement and in which provisions are introduced for compensation for improvements which point to a period of occupancy such as is usual under kanam, it seems to us that the clause relied on by the plaintiff must be read as referring to a period subsequent to the expiration of the usual twelve years.
3. Having regard to the other terms of the document, it is not sufficient by itself to show that it was the intention of the parties that the kanam should ensure as what is called a kattakanam which is redeemable at any time after its creation.
4. We dismiss the appeal with costs.