JUDGMENT : K.S. GOVINDA PILLAI, J. 1. Defendants 1, 3 and 4 are the appellants. The suit was for redemption of Ext. B mortgage executed by the husband of the 1st plaintiff and father of the 2nd defendant in favour of Kutty Govindan whose legal representatives are defendants 1 to 4. In that document a sum of Rs.50/- had been provided for and given credit to out of the mortgage amount of Rs.250/- for digging a well and putting up a building. The plaintiffs stated that since the whole amount had been agreed in the mortgage deed, the defendants were not entitled to claim anything towards the value of the building or the well. According to them there were no other improvements in the property. The suit was therefore for redemption of the mortgage on payment of Rs.250/-. 2. The defendants contended that they had spent about Rs.800/- for putting up the building and digging the well, that they are entitled to get the same, that they had levelled up the property for which compensation had to be paid and that the value of improvements effected by them would come to Rs.100/-. They claimed all these amounts before redemption was to be ordered. 3. The trial court found that the defendants were not entitled to get the value of the building, that they could get only Rs.250/- in all besides Rs.17/- and odd towards value of improvements. This decree was confirmed in appeal by the District Court. 4. The first question that arises for consideration in this appeal relates to the claim for the entire value of the building and well. The document Ext. B is for Rs.250/- of which Rs.200 was received in cash and Rs.50 reserved with the mortgagee for putting up a building and digging a well. It was further stated in the document that if the building was put up and well dug then at the time of redemption, the amount of Rs.50/- recited would be given credit to, that if improvements were effected compensation would be paid and that if Kyalas were constructed the value thereof found at the time of redemption would be paid. These provisions in the document would clearly indicate that the mortgagee was not to claim anything more than Rs.50 towards compensation for the building and well. These provisions in the document would clearly indicate that the mortgagee was not to claim anything more than Rs.50 towards compensation for the building and well. It is true that according to the present valuation the building is worth much more than Rs. 50, but that would not entitle him to claim the full value now. The mortgage amount itself was Rs.250 of which the mortgagor got only Rs.200. Rs.50 had been allowed to the mortgagee even from 1098, the date of Ext. B, for the express purpose of putting up a building and digging a well in the property. The building was considered to be only 10 years old in 1117 so that the mortgagee had the benefit of this Rs.50 from 1098 onwards. It was with open eyes that he took the mortgage and agreed to surrender the property after putting up a building and digging a well. He could not claim anything more than what is provided for in the document. 5. The appellant’s learned Advocate referred to the ruling in Janardanan v. Subramonia Iyer (5 T.L.T. 668) where a sum of 500 fanams had been reserved in the mortgage deed for Vettozhivu and the mortgagee was allowed the amount spent by him over and above the said 500 fanams used for converting the land. It was argued on the basis of this ruling that the figure mentioned in the document for any particular purpose is not to govern the equitable considerations when redemption is sought for, especially when it was found that the mortgagee had spent more than that stipulated in the document. In the first place there is a lot of difference between the wording in the document considered in the said ruling and Ext. B in this case. Here the wording taken as a whole would show that what was agreed upon between the parties was a compensation of Rs.50 for the well and the building. As regards Kyalas, it was stated that if they were constructed they would be paid for at the prevailing rate at the time of redemption. It was therefore clear that the parties intended the value of the building and well only at Rs.50 at the time of redemption. The mortgagee could not claim anything more than this. So the first point argued in appeal fails. 6. It was therefore clear that the parties intended the value of the building and well only at Rs.50 at the time of redemption. The mortgagee could not claim anything more than this. So the first point argued in appeal fails. 6. It was then stated that a sum of Rs.79 and odd had been utilised for converting the land for residential purpose. It was true that originally the property was a paddy land. But Ext. B itself would show that at the time of the mortgage it had been converted into a garden land planted with coconut trees some of which were bearing. The view of the lower court that the defendants could not have spent any amount for that purpose appears to be correct. 7. The last argument was, that in case more than Rs.50/- could not be allowed for the well and the building the defendants might be allowed to remove the building. We are not inclined to allow this also because the mortgagee had got credit for Rs.50/- for the express purpose of constructing the building and digging the well even in 1098. The property which had been mortgaged for Rs.250/- was being enjoyed by the defendant on payment of Rs.200/- only from 1098 and he had with open eyes agreed to put up a building there and to surrender the same at the time of redemption getting credit for Rs.50. He cannot be therefore allowed to remove the building at this stage. There is no substance in this appeal which is dismissed with costs. N.R.U. Appeal dismissed with cost.