ORDER : The defendant in S.C.S. No. 103 of 1959 on the file of the court of the Munsiff of Palghat is the petitioner before me and the short question involved in the case is one regarding the interpretation of Ss. 11 and 25 of the Kerala Agriculturists Debt Relief Act. 2. The defendant-petitioner and her deceased husband executed a possessory mortgage on 23rd May, 1956 creating a mortgage over eight items of immovable properties for a sum of Rs. 3,000/- in favour of the plaintaiff-respondent. The said mortgage document is Ext. A1. Under that document the mortgagee had to appropriate, out of the income of the properties which was assessed at 186 paras of paddy per year, 120 paras towards interest of mortgage amount and pay the balance of 66 paras of paddy per year as ‘purappad’ to the mortgagors. On the same day the mortgagors took back the properties mortgaged on lease evidenced by Ext. A2, under which they agreed to pay 120 paras of paddy every year in Kanni and Makaram to the mortgagee after appropriating 66 paras of paddy towards ‘purappad’ due to them under the mortgage. The suit, out of which the present C. R. P. arises, had been filed for recovery of arrears of rent under Ext. A2. The defendant contended that she was liable to pay only interest at 5 per cent on the mortgage account under S. 11 (6) of the Agriculturists Debt Relief. Act. The plaintiff, on the other hand, raised the contention that the transaction was saved by S. 25 (c) or (e) of the same Act and therefore he was entitled to the plaint claim in full. The lower court accepted the contention of the plaintiff and decreed the suit as prayed for and the defendant has filed the present revision questioning the correctness of the said decision. 3. S. 11 (1) of the Act enacts that S. 11, subject to the provisions of S. 25, applies to all subsisting mortgages executed by an agriculturist at any time before the commencement of the Act and by virtue of which the mortgagee is in possession of the property mortgaged or any portion thereof. The explanation to that sub-section further lays down that a mortgagee shall be deemed to be in possession of the mortgaged property, notwithstanding that he has leased it to any person other than the mortgagor. The explanation to that sub-section further lays down that a mortgagee shall be deemed to be in possession of the mortgaged property, notwithstanding that he has leased it to any person other than the mortgagor. Then sub-sections 2 to 5 of S. 11 make certain provisions regarding such mortgages, I mean mortgages whereunder the mortgagee is in possession, and I am not concerned with those provisions in the present case. Sub-section 6, with which I am directly concerned, enacts that nothing contained in sub-sections 2 to 5 shall apply to mortgages, where the property mortgaged has been leased back to the mortgagor by the mortgagee. To such mortgages clauses (a) and (b) of subsection 6 apply. Clause (a) enacts that such a mortgage shall be deemed to be a simple mortgage from the date of the lease back and the provisions of the Act shall apply to the debt covered by the mortgage. Clause (b) lays down that interest payable on such a mortgage, after the commencement of the Act, shall be at 5 per cent per annum. I am not concerned with sub-section 7 of S. 11 in the present case. 4. S. 25 of the Act is a saving provision and it lays down that nothing contained in the Act shall apply to mortgages having any one or more of the incidents enumerated in sub-sections [a] to [e] of that section. Sub-section [a] saves mortgages of waste lands, wherein there is provision for effecting permanent improvements on the properties by the mortgagee. Sub-section [b] excepts mortgages, where there is provision for renewal or there has been a renewal or renewals as a matter of fact. Sub-section [c], with which 1 am directly concerned in this case, saves mortgages, wherein there is provision for payment of ‘michavaram’, rent or customary dues. Similarly sub-section [d] excepts from the operation of the Act such mortgages, where the mortgagee has constructed a residential building in the mortgaged property and has been living therein and has effected improvements on the property. The last sub-section (e) takes out of the ambit of the Act such mortgage transactions, which, though purporting to be mortgages, are really in the nature of ‘kanam’, ‘kuzhikanam’ etc. The last sub-section (e) takes out of the ambit of the Act such mortgage transactions, which, though purporting to be mortgages, are really in the nature of ‘kanam’, ‘kuzhikanam’ etc. or any other agricultural lease and in such cases any person interested in the land may, notwithstanding anything contained in the Evidence Act or in any other law for the time being in force, plead, adduce evidence and prove that the transactions purporting to be mortgages are in fact not mortgages but transactions by way of ‘kanam’, ‘kuzhikanam’ etc. or any other agricultural lease. 5. In the case before me the lower court has held that in the mortgage, Ext. AI, since there is a provision for payment of ‘purappad’ of 66 paras of paddy to the mortgagor, the transaction falls within S. 25 (c) of the Act. According to the lower court ‘purappad’ is only a synonym for ‘michavaram’ and a mortgage under which “purappad’ is payable comes within the ambit of S. 25 (c). The lower court has also held that S. 25 (e) has no application in the present case, since the parties have no such case. ‘Michavaram’ is defined in the Malabar Tenancy Act as follows: ‘Michavaram’ means whatever is agreed by a kanamdar in a kanam deed to be paid periodically, in money or in kind or in both, to or on behalf of the jenmi.” From this definition it is clear that ‘michavaram’ in the strict sense can have application only in the case of a ‘kanam’ and not in the case of a mortgage. Therefore in one sense it can be argued with some force that the term ‘michavaram’ used in S. 25 (c) is not used in the strict sense as contemplated by the Malabar Tenancy Act. At the same time it is equally clear that the term is not used in such a wide sense as to include any payment by a mortgagee in possession to the mortgagor as the term ‘purappad’ would indicate. In other words, it cannot be safely held that ‘purappad’ is only a synonym for ‘michavaram’ as the lower court has done or, to be more precise, that ‘michavaram’ is a synonym for ‘purappad’. It is not disputed that ‘purappad’ is not rent. If any authority is required for this proposition, see Vasudevan Nambudiri v. Raman Nambudiri, AIR 1940 Mad. In other words, it cannot be safely held that ‘purappad’ is only a synonym for ‘michavaram’ as the lower court has done or, to be more precise, that ‘michavaram’ is a synonym for ‘purappad’. It is not disputed that ‘purappad’ is not rent. If any authority is required for this proposition, see Vasudevan Nambudiri v. Raman Nambudiri, AIR 1940 Mad. 939 , wherein a Division Bench of the Madras High Court has held so relying on an old case, Vankateshwara v. Kesava Shetty, 2 Mad. 187. Similarly it cannot be disputed that ‘michavaram’ is rent, for this court has already held so in Brahmadathan Namboodiripad v. Devassy, 1958 KLT 654 -F.B. A close scrutiny of the several sub-sections of S. 25 reveals one thing and that is this: what are sought to be saved by S. 25 are not mortgages simpliciter, wherein only the relationship of debtor and creditor exists, but the section seeks to except only such mortgages, by which some right or interest other than that of a creditor to receive his mortgage money and the interest thereon is created in the mortgagee. For example, sub-section [a] lays down that if the property mortgaged is waste land and there is a provision for making permanent improvements thereon by the mortgagee, then such a mortgage is excepted. In such a case it is clear that some right other than that of a mere creditor is created in the mortgagee by the transaction. Similarly under sub-section (b) if there is a provision in the mortgage for renewal or there has actually been a renewal, in such a case also some interest or right other than that of a mere creditor is contemplated or has actually come into existence. The same intention of the legislature is disclosed in sub-section [d]; and in sub-section [e] the right is given to a party to plead and prove that what purports to be a mortgage is one really in the nature of a ‘kanam’ or a lease. In this background if I now consider sub-section [c] of S. 25, what emerges is that this sub-section saves only such mortgages, wherein some right or interest other than or over and above the right of a mere creditor is created in the mortgagee. In this background if I now consider sub-section [c] of S. 25, what emerges is that this sub-section saves only such mortgages, wherein some right or interest other than or over and above the right of a mere creditor is created in the mortgagee. The existence or creation of such a right alone will warrant the court to hold that the mortgage is saved by S. 25 of the Act and the mere provision for the payment to the mortgagor by the mortgagee of what remains after appropriation of the interest on the mortgage amount out of the income of the property is not sufficient to bring any mortgage transaction within the purview of S. 25 [c]. It may also be noted that by the term ‘michavaram’ in S. 25 [c] is meant a payment which has something in common with rent or customary dues.” It is argued before me by Mr. Venkitakrishnan the respondent’s learned counsel, that the mortgage and the lease back being of the same date have to be considered as one transaction and construed together. The learned counsel has further developed his argument that if these documents were to be so construed together, then there is a provision for payment of rent in the lease deed and that provision would bring the transaction within the scope of S. 25 (c) of the Act. I do not think that the contention is quite happy or tenable. S. 11 [6] [a] clearly lays down that a mortgage, if followed by a lease back to the mortgagor himself, shall be deemed to be a simple mortgage from the date of the lease back and clause [b] of the same sub-section lays down that in such cases interest payable on the mortgage amount after the commencement of the Act shall be only 5 per cent per annum. Further, what is contemplated by S. 25(c) is a provision in the mortgage document for payment of ‘michavaram’, rent or customary dues by the mortgagee to the mortgagor and not a provision in the lease deed for payment of rent by the mortgagor to the mortgagee. I may also observe in passing that the lease back is only a method of collecting the interest on the mortgage amount In this view the argument of the learned advocate of the respondent appears to have no force. 6. I may also observe in passing that the lease back is only a method of collecting the interest on the mortgage amount In this view the argument of the learned advocate of the respondent appears to have no force. 6. The result of the above discussion is that the provisions of Ext. A1, the mortgage document, alone have to be looked into and if they unequivocally disclose only a relationship of debtor and creditor, then S. 11 (6) applies. If, on the other hand, the provisions of the mortgage document disclose the creation or conferment on the mortgagee of any further right or interest other than that of a creditor, then alone S. 25 has to be invoked and the saving provisions contained therein have to be applied. As the lower court has rightly pointed out the provisions of Ext. A1 clearly indicate that the document intended only to create the relationship of debtor and creditor and nothing more. The provision in the document for the payment of ‘purappad’, which term only means the excess remaining after appropriation of the interest on the mortgage money, by itself will not bring the transaction within the saving provision of S. 25 [c] of the Act. It is well known that even a pure ‘kanam’ transaction is an anomalous mortgage, for, some elements of a mortgage transaction are present in every ‘kanam’. The converse, I mean, that every mortgage contains some elements of the lease, is not true. The intention of the legislature in enacting S. 25 of the Act is only to save such mortgages, wherein something more than the relationship of mortgagee and mortgagor is existing and if that something falls within any of the sub-sections of S. 25, then alone the section will apply. In the case before me I do not think that by Ext. A1 any such right or interest is created in the mortgagee and therefore there is no scope for the application of S. 25 to the present case. 7. In the result the decree of the lower court is modified as prayed for in the written statement, i.e., the suit is decreed for Rs. 50/- with proportionate costs. The C.R.P. is allowed as indicated above, but in the circumstances, without costs.