Judgment :- 1. This Second Appeal arises out of a suit for redemption of a mortgage and for an injunction to restrain the defendant from entering on the suit property. 2. The suit property belongs to the Thamarakulathu Madhom and was leased by the said Madhom to one Thomas Abraham under Ext. A on 4.1.1118 for a period of three years. The lease was one with premium, the premium amount being 700 Fanams. On 14.6.1122 the Madhom mortgaged the property to the defendant for 1400 Fanams under Ext. B. A sum of 700 Fanams out of the mortgage amount was reserved with the mortgagee for payment to the lessee and redemption of Ext. A lease. It was also provided in Ext. B that the mortgage could be redeemed only after 14.6.1125. On 16.3.1950 ie., 3.8.1125, the Madhom executed Ext. C superior mortgage in favour of the plaintiff authorising him to redeem Ext. B mortgage and recover possession of the plaint property. Alleging that the defendant had never redeemed Ext. A lease in pursuance of Ext. B mortgage and that he (plaintiff) had paid the premium amount to Thomas Abraham and redeemed Ext. A lease on 13.5.1950 and was in possession of the plaint property from the said date, plaintiff brought the suit which has given rise to this second appeal, for redemption of Ext. B mortgage. As an amount of 700 Fanams out of the mortgage amount of 1400 Fanams under Ext. B was reserved with the mortgagee himself as per the recitals in that document, for payment to Thomas Abraham in discharge of the premium amount and redemption of Ext. A lease, and since the plaintiff's case was that the defendant had not paid that amount to Thomas Abraham and redeemed Ext. A lease, he offered in the plaint to pay only 700 Fanams to the defendant for the redemption of Ext. B mortgage and deposited the same in court on 10.8.1950. He also alleged in the plaint that the defendant was attempting to trespass upon the plaint property and prayed for an injunction to restrain him from entering upon the property. 3. The defendant contested the suit. According to him, after taking Ext. B mortgage, he took a sub-lease for the plaint property from Thomas Abraham on 10.3.1122, and it was while he was thus in possession of the plaint property that the plaintiff took Ext. 3. The defendant contested the suit. According to him, after taking Ext. B mortgage, he took a sub-lease for the plaint property from Thomas Abraham on 10.3.1122, and it was while he was thus in possession of the plaint property that the plaintiff took Ext. C superior mortgage. Plaintiff knew, at the time he took Ext. C, that the defendant was in possession of the property. In 1950, the defendant paid the premium amount to Thomas Abhraham and took a release of Ext. A lease in pursuance to Ext. B mortgage. Under the provisions of Ext. B the defendant is entitled to hold the property for three years after the redemption of Ext. A lease and, so, plaintiff can redeem Ext. B mortgage only after 1953. As he has paid the premium amount to Thomas Abraham and redeemed Ext. A lease in pursuance of Ext. B he is entitled to get the full mortgage amount of 1400 Fanams before the plaintiff can be allowed to redeem Ext. B. He has also effected improvements in the property and is entitled to get Rs. 300/- on that account. 4. In the replication which he filed in answer to the defendant's written statement, plaintiff stated that the defendant had not taken any sub-lease on 10.3.1122 as alleged in the written statement, that the unregistered lease deed which the defendant had produced was a document brought into existence after the filing of the plaint, that the plaintiff had redeemed Ext. A lease and obtained possession of the property, that the release which the defendant alleged he had obtained in 1950 from Thomas Abraham was a fraudulent document and so the defendant was entitled to get only 700 Fanams for the redemption of Ext. B, and that he had also not effected any improvements in the property. 5. The trial court found that the defendant was in possession of the property at the time the plaintiff took Ext. C superior mortgage and also on the date of the plaint, but it held that the defendant was entitled to get only 700 Fanams for the redemption of Ext. B mortgage as the plaintiff had paid the premium amount to Thomas Abraham and obtained a release of Ext. A lease on 13.5.1050 and it was only after that date that the defendant took a release of Ext. B mortgage as the plaintiff had paid the premium amount to Thomas Abraham and obtained a release of Ext. A lease on 13.5.1050 and it was only after that date that the defendant took a release of Ext. A. It repelled also the other contentions of the defendant and gave a decree to the plaintiff allowing redemption of Ext. B mortgage and recovery of possession of the property from the defendant. In the appeal, which the defendant filed against the trial court's decree, he repeated all the contentions in his written statement and also urged that the trial court went wrong in giving the plaintiff a decree for recovery of possession of the property when there was no prayer for that relief in the plaint. The lower appellate court confirmed the trial court's findings and held that a decree could be given to the plaintiff for recovery of possession of the property under 0.7 R.7 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Consequently, it dismissed the defendant's appeal, and so he had filed this second appeal. 6. It was strenuously contended by the appellant's counsel in this court that no decree could be given to the plaintiff for recovery of possession of the plaint property since there was no prayer in the plaint for that relief. 0.7 R. 7 of the Code of civil Procedure provides: "Every plaint shall state specifically the relief which the plaintiff claims either simply or in the alternative, and it shall not be necessary to ask for general or other relief which may always be given as the Court may think just to the same extent as if it had been asked for. And the same rule shall apply to any relief claimed by the defendant in his written statement". The present suit is one for redemption of Ext. B mortgage. The mortgage is a usufructuary mortgage and in a suit for redemption of such a mortgage the plaintiff is entitled to ask for and get a decree for recovery of possession also. In this case, it so happened that the property was outstanding on a prior lease when the usufructuary mortgage was executed in favour of the defendant, and so he was asked by the mortgage deed to redeem the lease and recover possession of the property. In this case, it so happened that the property was outstanding on a prior lease when the usufructuary mortgage was executed in favour of the defendant, and so he was asked by the mortgage deed to redeem the lease and recover possession of the property. Since the plaintiff's case was that the defendant did not redeem the lease and that he himself had redeemed the lease and was in possession of the property, he did not ask for the relief for recovery of possession of the property and only prayed for the redemption of the mortgage. Since it has been concurrently found by the courts below that the defendant is in possession of the property and since the plaintiff is entitled to redeem the mortgage, it is only just that he should be given a decree to recover possession of the property also when he redeems the mortgage. All the necessary averments for obtaining the two reliefs, redemption of Ext. B mortgage and recovery of possession of the property, were made in the plaint, and it was not necessary for the plaintiff to make any fresh averment for obtaining a decree for recovery of possession. In Kali Kumar Vidyaratna v. Kashi Chandra Mitra, XI Indian Cases 882, it was held: "Where although a suit is in form for confirmation of possession, yet in substance it is for recovery of possession and ad valorem court fee has been paid upon the plaint which sets out facts constituting dispossession, a decree for recovery of possession can be given". In the present case also, according to the plaintiff, he was in possession of the property, and the effect of the decree which he had prayed for in the plaint would have been to confirm his possession. The fact that the mortgage that is sought to be redeemed is a usufructuary mortgage was specifically mentioned in the plaint. Plaintiff has also paid the full court fee for a suit for redemption of the mortgage and recovery of possession of the property. With regard to 0. The fact that the mortgage that is sought to be redeemed is a usufructuary mortgage was specifically mentioned in the plaint. Plaintiff has also paid the full court fee for a suit for redemption of the mortgage and recovery of possession of the property. With regard to 0. 7, R. 7, it is said that page 610 of Mulla's Book on the Code of Civil Procedure, 12th Edition: "Under the system of pleadings hitherto followed in India, it was usual to add in the plaint a prayer for general relief called general prayer which ran thus: 'The plaintiff claims such further or other relief as the nature of the case may require'. Under the present rule it is no longer necessary specifically to ask for such relief. Such relief may now always be given to the same extent as if it had been asked for, provided it is not inconsistent with that specifically claimed, and with the case raised by the pleading. Thus where the suit is for declaration of title and for injunction on the defendant from interfering with plaintiff's possession a decree for recovery of possession can be granted where such relief would not be inconsistent with the plaintiff's case. In order, however, to entitle a plaintiff to a relief under the claim for general relief, it is necessary that the ground for such relief should be disclosed by the allegations in the plaint." In this case, not only did the plaint contain all the necessary allegations that had to be made by the plaintiff for obtaining a decree for recovery of possession of property but the defendant also had set up in the written statement all the contentions he could put forward as a mortgagee against the mortgagor's claim for recovery of possession of the property; and issues were also raised and tried in respect of those contentions. The two contentions that he could put forward were that he had redeemed Ext. A lease and was therefore entitled to get the full mortgage amount and that he was also entitled to get the value of the improvements effected by him. It was on these contentions that the trial court raised issues Nos.1 and 5 which specifically cover the question of the amount payable by the plaintiff to the defendant for redemption and the value of improvements due to the latter. It was on these contentions that the trial court raised issues Nos.1 and 5 which specifically cover the question of the amount payable by the plaintiff to the defendant for redemption and the value of improvements due to the latter. On the 5th issue, the courts below have concurrently held that the defendant has not effected any improvements and is not, therefore, entitled to get any value of improvements. In this connection, it has to be borne in mind that the plaint property is a paddy field and it is most unlikely that the defendant would have effected any improvement in it. The Courts below have also considered the question of the redemption price payable by the plaintiff. In the circumstances the contention that no decree for recovery of possession of the property can be given to the plaintiff because he had not prayed for such a relief in the plaint cannot be accepted. 7. It was next contended that the courts below were wrong in holding that the redemption price payable by the plaintiff is only 700 Fanams. According to the plaintiff, the defendant has not paid the premium amount of 700 Fs. to Thomas Abraham and he himself paid if and took Ext. D release from Thomas Abraham on 13.5.1950. As per the concurrent findings of the courts below, the defendant was in possession of the plaint property at the time the plaintiff took Ext. C superior mortgage on 16.3.1950 and also on the date of plaint. In view of this concurrent finding, the plaintiff's case that he obtained possession of the property from Thomas Abraham on the date of Ext. D cannot be accepted. He was not directed by Ext. G to pay the premium amount to Thomas Abraham and obtain the release of the lease. On the other hand, it was expressly mentioned in Ext. C that the defendant was in possession of the property. In these circumstances, he should not have paid the money to Thomas Abraham and taken a release of the lease without obtaining possession of the property. If the plaintiff has really made any payment to Thomas Abraham under Ext. D it can be deemed only to be a purely voluntary payment and he is not entitled claim any deduction of account of it from the mortgage amount due to the defendant under Ext. If the plaintiff has really made any payment to Thomas Abraham under Ext. D it can be deemed only to be a purely voluntary payment and he is not entitled claim any deduction of account of it from the mortgage amount due to the defendant under Ext. B. The findings of the courts below are to the effect that the defendant also paid the amount to Thomas Abraham on 29.5.1950 and took another release. That release was strictly in pursuance of Ext. B. There is absolutely no evidence to show that when he took the release of 29.5.1950 the defendant was aware of the payment which the plaintiff had already made to Thomas Abraham. Plaintiff had not issued any notice to the defendant after taking Ext. D. In the circumstances, the defendant is entitled to get the full mortgage amount of 1400 Fs. due to him under Ext. B and no deduction can be made from that amount. The courts below were, therefore, wrong in fixing the redemption price as 700 Fs. 8. There is no substance in the defendant's contention that he is entitled to get value of improvements from the plaintiff. Although a specific issue was raised in the trial court on his contention that he was entitled to get Rs.300/- as value of improvements, he did not adduce any evidence in regard to that matter. As observed in paragraph 6 above, it is also unlikely that he would have made any improvements. 9. In the result, the decree of the courts below are modified and the plaintiff is given a decree to redeem Ext. B mortgage and recover possession of the plaint property on depositing in court the full mortgage amount of 1400 (one thousand and four hundred) Fanams due to the defendant under Ext. B. As the amount which has been deposited by the plaintiff in the trial court is only 700 Fs. he will be allowed to recover possession of the property only on depositing the balance amount of 700 Fs. also in the execution court. From the date the plaintiff gives notice of the deposit of the said balance to the defendant, he will be allowed to recover interest at nine per cent per annum on the full amount of 1400 Fs. till the date of recovery of possession of the property or till three years from the said date whichever is earlier. From the date the plaintiff gives notice of the deposit of the said balance to the defendant, he will be allowed to recover interest at nine per cent per annum on the full amount of 1400 Fs. till the date of recovery of possession of the property or till three years from the said date whichever is earlier. The defendant-appellant will pay one half of the costs of the plaintiff-respondent in this court.