Judgment :- 1. The plaintiff and defendants 4 to 7 in O.S. No. 419 of 1947 the Palghat Munsiffs Court, a suit for redemption of a usufructuary mortgage, are the appellants in this second appeal. The plaintiff is the father of defendants 4 to 7 and in the suit as originally brought by him, his children were not impleaded. The trial court decreed the suit. 2. The decree, however, was set aside by the Subordinate Judge of South Malabar at Palghat (A. S. Nos.1 and 2 of 1950) and the case remanded "for fresh disposal on all points after framing an issue relating to the title of the plaintiff". Defendants 4 to 7 were thereafter brought on record and it is not now disputed that it is they and not the plaintiff who is entitled to redeem the property. 3. The decretal portion of the trial court judgment after remand reads as follows: "In the result, the suit is decreed for redemption and possession in favour of defendants 4 to 7 on payment of Rs. 360 as mortgage money to the 2nd defendant. Defendants 4 to 7 will be entitled to get 9 paras 3 edangalis and 2 nazhies of paddy being the purappad for 1120 and thereafter at the same rate up to the date of recovery of possession less Government revenue and michavaram if any paid by the defendants in these years together with interest on the above purappad at 51/2 per cent per annum from due dates. After setting off the amounts due to defendants 4 to 7 they will be entitled to get a decree for the balance if any calculating the value of paddy at the Gazette rates on the respective dates against defendants 1 and 2. The parties to bear their costs", and the decision has been confirmed by the Subordinate Judge of South Malabar at Palghat in A. S. No. 7 of 1953. 4. The controversy before me is only as regards the price of redemption, the first point urged being that the appellants are entitled to get the arrears of purappad for the years 1117 to 1119 as well. There is no claim for the said purappad even in the amended plaint and I must hence decline to interfere in the matter. 5. The usufructuary mortgage concerned is Ext. A-1 dated 30-7-1937. The amount payable under the said document was Rs. There is no claim for the said purappad even in the amended plaint and I must hence decline to interfere in the matter. 5. The usufructuary mortgage concerned is Ext. A-1 dated 30-7-1937. The amount payable under the said document was Rs. 600 but the said amount was reduced under the provisions of the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act, 1938, to Rs. 360 and the contention before me is that the purappad payable should as a result be augmented by the addition of interest at 14 paras of paddy per Rs.100 on Rs. 240, the reduction effected under the provisions of the Act. 6. The judgment in A.S. No. 7 of 1953 from which this second appeal arises deals with the matter as follows: "It is then contended for the appellants that in as much as the mortgage debt has been scaled down and only a sum of Rs. 360 is due and payable by them, the lower court ought to have directed pro rata reduction in the interest payable and decreed purappad of an enhanced rate. I do not think there is much substance in this contention. Until the mortgage is redeemed by payment of whatever amount due, the rights of the parties must be governed by the terms of the mortgage document. I have therefore to hold that the appellants are entitled to claim only the purappad as decreed by the lower court". 7. The relevant provision in the document reads as follows : "Therefore, you shall hold the properties in your possession, and cultivate the same without altering the boundary bunds; and you shall pay to us from out of the annual pattom of 125 paras of paddy in respect of the properties, a balance quantity of 9 paras, 3 edangalis and 2 nazhies by way of purappad per year, after deducting a quantity of 11 paras of paddy being the quantity allowed to be adjusted for payment of the revenue assessment of Rs. 5 in respect of the properties, a quantity of 20 paras, 6 edangalis and 2 nazhies of paddy being the quantity allowed to be adjusted and set off for payment of the jenmi michavaram, and a quantity of 84 paras of paddy being the quantity allowed to be deducted towards the interest on the mortgage amount of Rs. 600". 8. 5 in respect of the properties, a quantity of 20 paras, 6 edangalis and 2 nazhies of paddy being the quantity allowed to be adjusted and set off for payment of the jenmi michavaram, and a quantity of 84 paras of paddy being the quantity allowed to be deducted towards the interest on the mortgage amount of Rs. 600". 8. It is wrong to say that a rate of interest is stipulated as due under Ext. A-1. S.9 (a) of the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act, 1938, is the section under which appellants got the amount reduced from Rs. 600 to Rs. 360 and the Explanation to that section says: "Usufructuary mortgage' in this section means any mortgage by virtue of which the mortgagee is in possession of the property mortgaged, where no rate of interest is stipulated as due to the mortgagee". If the appellants' contention is correct, they could not have obtained any relief under the said section of the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act, 1938. 9. S.9 (a) was a new section introduced by the Madras Agriculturists Relief (Amendment) Act, 1948. The words "where no rate of interest is stipulated as due to the mortgagee", however, occurred in S.10 (2) (1) of the original Act and those words have come up for the consideration of the Madras High Court. In Vasudevan v. Maavikraman A. I. R.1943 Madras 52.5, for example, in dealing with a provision similar to the one before me, Wadsworth and Patanjali Sastri, JJ., said: "that the rather involved language in which the amount of purappad payable by the mortgagee is stipulated, is intended to do no more than set forth the way in which this purappad has been calculated, and we do not think that from the language of this document, it can be inferred that the mortgagor was to be liable to pay any rate of interest or that the mortgagee was to account for any surplus over the interest in calculation in the passage just referred to. Such recitals are very common in documents from Malabar. Such recitals are very common in documents from Malabar. It is the normal practice in drawing up such documents to take an estimated yield, adjust it in various ways and arrive at a balance to be payable as purappad or surplus produce by the mortgagee to the mortgagor" and: "We are, therefore, of opinion that this document although it recites a rate of interest as part of the calculation of the rate of purappad is not a document which stipulates a rate of interest as due to the mortgagee; nor is the realisation of the produce by the mortgagee under the terms of this document a payment of interest by the mortgagor such as might be taken into account under S.8 (2) and (3) of Madras Act 4". 10. This decision was followed in Jagannadhan v. Narasimham A. I. R.1944 Madras 501 wherein it is stated: "Under these circumstances, as pointed out in A. I. R.1943 Madras 525 the mention of interest by the parties could only be regarded as made for the purpose of assessing the return to the mortgagee on the amount invested by him on the basis of the estimated yield. The position here is very similar, and it follows therefore that the receipt of the profits by the mortgagees could not be regarded as payments by the debtor for the purpose of S.8 (2) of the Act". 11. There is no provision in the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act, 1938, which supports the claim made by the appellants and in the absence of a specific statutory provision I see no reason - legal or equitable - to uphold the contention urged before me. 12. It follows that this second appeal should fail and that it should be dismissed with costs. Judgment accordingly.