JUDGMENT : 1. In this Second Appeal, on behalf of the 5th defendant-appellant, Mr. N.K. Varkey challenges the order of the learned Subordinate Judge disagreeing with the first court and disallowing compensation in the sum of Rs.5,156-4-0. This claim for compensation was made for rubber trees stated to have been planted by the 5th defendant-appellant who was holding the properties on mortgage. 2. Admittedly, the document evidencing the transaction of Kumbhom 1083 namely, the mortgage document specifically gives permission to the mortgagee to plant only coconut, arecanut, and jack trees and it also specifically prohibits the mortgagee from planting rubber, coffee, tea, and cardamom. That means, the mortgagee was specifically prohibited from planting commercial crops on the properties. There is also no controversy that the claim for the value of improvements made by the mortgagee regarding rubber in the proceedings connected with the suit, appeal, and Second Appeal was negatived. 3. In the executing court, the claim was again raised originally oh the basis of the Travancore-Cochin Compensation for Tenants Improvements Act, 1956-T. C. Act 1/1956 and subsequently, on the basis of the Kerala Compensation for Tenants Improvements Act, 1958 - Kerala Act XXIX/1958. The trial court appears to have accepted the contention of the petitioner and allowed him compensation in respect of the rubber trees. But the Appellate Judge has accepted the claim of the decree-holder that the mortgagee is not entitled to claim value of improvements in respect of this head namely, for planting rubber. No doubt, the learned Judge has disposed of the matter on a slightly different ground namely, on an interpretation placed on sub-section 3 of S. 5 of Kerala Act XXIX/1958. 4. In this Second Appeal, Mr. N.K. Varkey, learned counsel for the 5th defendant-appellant, has contended that the interpretation placed by the learned Subordinate Judge on sub-section 3 of S. 5 of Kerala Act, XXIX/1958 is not correct. It is not necessary for me to consider the correctness or otherwise of this contention of Mr. N.K. Varkey, because I am satisfied that the claim made on the basis of planting rubber will not be an ‘improvement’ as defined in Kerala Act XXIX/1958 under S. 2 (b). It is not necessary for me to deal with this contention in any great detail, because I have, in my decision in S. A. 125/ 1957 reported in Sankaran v. Sankaran Channar (1959 KLT. It is not necessary for me to deal with this contention in any great detail, because I have, in my decision in S. A. 125/ 1957 reported in Sankaran v. Sankaran Channar (1959 KLT. 1259) considered the connotation of the definition ‘improvement’ contained in some of the connected enactments as also the connotation of that term as contained in the present Act in question namely, Kerala Act XXIX/1958. I have referred there to the several decisions of the Travancore and Madras High Courts and therefore, it is not necessary for me to deal with the same matter over again. As I am satisfied, with the contention of Mr. Madhavan Nair, learned counsel for the decree-holder-respondent namely, the planting of rubber trees notwithstanding the specific prohibition in the mortgage-deed and also in view of the fact that the property was predominently an agricultural land, planting of rubber cannot be considered to be ‘suitable to it and consistent with the purpose for which the holding has been mortgaged’. The fact that there is a clear prohibition regarding the planting of rubber and certain other trees will clearly show that the mortgagor also considered it to be not suitable and consistent with the purpose for which the holding was being mortgaged. Mr. N.K. Varkey referred me to S. 17 of Kerala Act XXIX of 1958 & contended that the contract in this case namely, the mortgage deed, which takes away his right to plant rubber trees, will not avail the decree-holder-respondent. No doubt, section 17 provides that nothing in any contract entered into whether before or after the commencement of this Act shall take away or limit the right of a tenant to make improvements and to claim compensation for them in accordance with the provisions of this Act. The other parts of this section are omitted as they are not relevant for the present purpose. But it should not be missed that S. 17 saves the right of the tenant to claim compensation in respect of improvements in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the term ‘improvement’ occurring in S. 17 must be read along with the definition of the said term as contained in S. 2 (b). Therefore, in order to claim an item as an ‘improvement’, it must be held ‘to be suitable to & consistent with the purpose for which the holding is let’. Therefore, in order to claim an item as an ‘improvement’, it must be held ‘to be suitable to & consistent with the purpose for which the holding is let’. As laid down in my previous decision referred to earlier, I am satisfied that the order of the learned Subordinate Judge negativing the right to value of improvements must be confirmed, though not for the reasons given by that court, but for entirely different reasons contained in this judgment. In this view, I do not think it necessary to consider the correctness or otherwise of the interpretation placed by the learned Judge on sub-section 3 of S. 5 of Kerala Act XXIX/1958. In the result, the Second Appeal fails and is dismissed, but in the circumstances, without any order as to costs. No leave. Dismissed.