Judgment :- 1. In this Second Appeal, Mr. T.S. Venkiteswara Iyer, learned counsel for the appellant who was the mortgagee defendant in the suit, attacks the orders of the two subordinate courts passed in execution of the redemption decree negativing the right of the appellant to get either re-delivery of the property or for recovery of mesne profits from the plaintiff decree-holder. 2. The question arises in the following manner. The respondent plaintiff admittedly obtained a decree in redemption of a mortgage as against; the appellant on 11-5-48. The decree also directed that the mortgagee is to pay the plaintiff therein the mortgage amount and value of improvements. On 26-5-1948 the mortgage amount of Rs. 658-12-0 and also the value of improvements fixed in the sum of Rs. 1838-8-0 were deposited by the respondent and those amounts were also withdrawn by the appellant on 5-4-1949. In the meanwhile, the plaintiff mortgagor in execution of the decree obtained by him for redemption actually took delivery of the properties from the appellant. 3. The appellant, after delivering possession of the property and also after withdrawing the mortgage amount and the value of improvements awarded to him under the decree of the trial court, agitated his claim for getting higher value of improvements in A.S. 265/23. In the appellate decree dated 25-3-1950 the appellant got a further increase in the sum of Rs. 208 as and for value of improvements. The appellant still not satisfied with the increase made by the appellate court regarding the value of improvements made a further claim before the Travancore-Cochin High Court in S.A. 629 of 1950. The Travancore-Cochin High Court by its judgment dated 18-8-1954 and rendered in the above Second Appeal made a further increase in favour of the appellant in the claim for compensation in the sum of Rs. 442. That means he got an increase of Rs. 208 from the lower appellate court and a further increase of Rs. 442 from the High Court. 4. After all this was over, the appellant filed an application on 18-10-1954 for re-delivery of the properties taken possession of by the mortgagor plaintiff in the suit on 26-5-1948 and also prayed for adjudicating his claim for mesne profits for the period that the plaintiff mortgagor was in possession, namely, from 26-5-48. 442 from the High Court. 4. After all this was over, the appellant filed an application on 18-10-1954 for re-delivery of the properties taken possession of by the mortgagor plaintiff in the suit on 26-5-1948 and also prayed for adjudicating his claim for mesne profits for the period that the plaintiff mortgagor was in possession, namely, from 26-5-48. The learned District Munsiff in the first instance, and also the learned District Judge on appeal, have both of them negatived the claim of the appellant both regarding re-delivery and also for awarding mesne profits as against the plaintiff mortgagor. The learned District Munsiff and also the learned District Judge, of Ernakulam have ultimately awarded in favour of the appellant interest on the enhanced value of improvements awarded in his favour from 26 5-1948. i.e., the date when the property was taken delivery of by the plaintiff respondent till 16-11-1954, i.e, the date on which the additional value of improvements was deposited by the respondent in court. 5. Mr. T.S. Venkiteswara Iyer, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the view of the two subordinate courts that the plaintiff mortgagor is not liable either to re-deliver the property or to answer the claim for mesne profits in favour of the appellant is wrong. The learned counsel urged that under the provisions of S.4 of Act 10 of 1956 it is provided that every tenant shall on eviction be entitled to value "of improvements which were made by him at the time of eviction and every tenant to whom compensation is so due shall notwithstanding the determination of the tenancy or the payment or tender of the mortgage money or premium be entitled to remain in possession until eviction in execution of the decree or order of court. 6. It is the contention of Mr. T.S. Venkiteswara Iyer that the possession taken by the plaintiff respondent, though no doubt in pursuance of the decree for redemption, should be considered to be unlawful and in view of the protection afforded to persons like the appellant to continue to remain in possession till the last pie of the value of improvements is also paid to him, the possession of the plaintiff respondent cannot be considered to be lawful and that he is answerable to the appellant in respect of the claim for mesne profits made against him. The learned counsel also urged another contention, namely, that in any event the appellant must have been awarded not this meagre rate of 6 per cent interest given by the two subordinate courts but a higher rate of interest at 12 percent on the additional amount of enhanced compensation decreed in his favour. 7. In support of his contention that the position of the plaintiff in such circumstances must be considered to be unlawful, and that the latter is also liable for mesne profits the learned counsel relied upon a decision of the Cochin Chief Court reported in Narayanan Nambudiri v. Haji Abdulla Haji Adam Sait (6 Cochin Law Reports 233). The learned Chief Judge and also Mr. Justice Sankara Menon of the Cochin Chief Court, no doubt in considering a similar claim made before them were of the view that the judgment-debtor in that case was entitled to remain in possession till the whole sum due to him on account of value of improvements was paid. The learned judges were also of the view that without paying the said value of improvements, if a party is ousted from possession such an ouster is illegal and the person in possession is none other than a trespasser. 8. Mr. T.S. Venkiteswara Iyer very strongly relied upon this reasoning of the learned judges to contend that the possession of the plaintiff respondent in this case should be considered to be a person not other than as a trespasser and must be answerable for mesne profits. 9. This decision need not detain me further because there is a Full Bench decision of the Cochin Chief Court, relied upon by Mr. M.K. Narayana Menon, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff respondent, reported in Swami Pattar v. Govindan Unni Elaya Mannadiar (4 Cochin Law Reports 402). 9. This decision need not detain me further because there is a Full Bench decision of the Cochin Chief Court, relied upon by Mr. M.K. Narayana Menon, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff respondent, reported in Swami Pattar v. Govindan Unni Elaya Mannadiar (4 Cochin Law Reports 402). A Full Bench of the Cochin Chief Court, which included also the learned Chief Judge, who was a party to the decision in Narayanan Nambudiri v. Haji Abdulla Haji Adam Sait (6 Cochin Law Reports 233) referred to earlier, and who also delivered the judgment on behalf of the Bench in the earlier decision, was prepared to take the view that in such cases the position of the party cannot certainly be considered to be either unlawful nor will it entitle a person who has given possession, to claim mesne profits merely because he has been able to get a higher value of improvements by agitating that claim in the appellate court. This decision of the Full Bench of the Cochin Chief Court, for some reason or other has not been adverted to by the learned judges, when they decided the case in Narayanan Nambudiri v. Haji Abdulla Haji Adam Sait (6 Cochin Law Reports 233). Therefore, the position comes to this that even in the Cochin Chief Court, the view of the Full Bench appears to be that persons in the position of the plaintiff before me, cannot be either considered to be that of a trespasser nor can a claim for mesne profits be made as against him. To a similar effect is also the decision of the Madras High Court reported in Manian v. Kuthiravattath Raman (A.I.R.1921 Madras 609), a decision of Mr. Justice Abdur Rahim and Mr. Justice Odgers and the said decision has also been followed in a later decision by another Division Bench reported in Neelakandan v. Vasudevan (45 M.L.J. 323). 10. In my view, mesne profits can be payable by a person who can be considered to be in wrongful possession of another man's land and in this case it is difficult to understand how exactly the plaintiff-respondent can be said to be in wrongful possession of the lands, in the suit which he has obtained possession of by virtue of the decree for redemption obtained in his favour. It must also be remembered that the decree for redemption, as such was never challenged even by the appellant either in A.S. 265 of 1123 or in S.A. 629 of 1950 the only claim that he was making before the appellate authorities was regarding his right to enhanced compensation for value of improvements. Respectfully adopting the reasoning of the Full Bench of the Cochin Chief Court in Swami Pattar v. Govindan Unni Elaya Mannadiar (4 Cochin Law Reports 402) and in Manian v. Kuthiravattath Raman (A.I.R.1921 Madras 609) and Neelakandan v. Velayudhan (45 M. L. J. 323), it must be held that the appellant is neither entitled to ask for re-delivery as against the plaintiff-respondent nor is he entitled to get mesne profits from plaintiff-respondent on the ground that the latter has taken possession of the property on 26-5-1948 before a final adjudication has been given by the courts in favour of the appellant regarding his claim for enhanced value of improvements. 11. Learned counsel Mr. T.S. Venkiteswara Iyer for the appellant next urged that in any event the lower courts erred in not awarding only interest at 6 per cent from date of delivery of possession in respect of the additional value of improvements which has been admittedly awarded by the appellate court in the first instance and further enhanced by the second appellate court. No doubt, on this aspect Mr. T.S. Venkiteswara Iyer relied upon the decision of the Madras High Court in Neelakandan v. Vasudevan (45 M.L.J. 323) to contend that in proper cases it is open to the court to exercise its discretion and award a higher rate of interest. In fact, in that case interest was awarded at 12 per cent. 12. On the other hand, Mr. M.K. Narayana Menon, learned counsel has drawn my attention to this circumstance, namely, that the appellant has admittedly drawn the mortgage amount of Rs. 658-12-0 and also the value of improvements in the sum of Rs. 1838-8-0 on 5-6-1948 and he has been having the benefit of these amounts till 1954 and thereafter. Therefore really the award of 6 per cent interest on the full value of improvements awarded to him should also be considered from this aspect, namely, the benefit that the appellant had of the amounts withdrawn by him from 1948. I am in entire agreement with this contention of Mr. Therefore really the award of 6 per cent interest on the full value of improvements awarded to him should also be considered from this aspect, namely, the benefit that the appellant had of the amounts withdrawn by him from 1948. I am in entire agreement with this contention of Mr. M. K. Narayana Menon, and it also follows that in this case there is absolutely no justification for granting a higher rate of interest than that awarded by both the subordinate courts. 13. In the result, the Second Appeal fails and is dismissed with costs of the plaintiff-respondent. No leave. Dismissed.