JUDGMENT T.C. Raghavan, J. 1. Section 11 of the Kerala Agriculturists Debt Relief Act, 1958 comes up for consideration in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. The appellant executed a possessory mortgage for Rs. 550/- in 1105. For Rs. 400/- out of the mortgage money the usufruct from the mortgaged property was allowed to be appropriated towards interest and for the balance of Rs. 150/- the mortgagor undertook to pay interest at 12 per cent per annum. The interest so agreed to be paid was kept in arrears. O. S. No. 257 of 1951 was filed for redemption of the mortgage, wherein a decree for redemption was also passed. Subsequently the Debt Relief Act came into force and the mortgagor-decree holder in the redemption suit filed an application under S.11 of the Act. The Trial Court allowed the application holding that the mortgagor was bound only to deposit Rs. 275/- being half the mortgage money, and Rs. 75/- towards interest, being half of Rs. 150/-, which is the portion of the mortgage money for which the mortgagor undertook to pay interest personally. The Trial Court also gave certain directions regarding the value of improvements payable to the mortgagees and the mesne profits recoverable by the mortgagor. The mortgagees took up the matter in appeal and the learned District Judge of Kottayam reversed the findings of the Trial Court and remitted the application for fresh disposal in the light of the observations contained in his judgment. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal disputes the correctness of the order of remand by the learned District Judge. 2. The first point for consideration is whether the learned District Judge is correct in directing the mortgagor to file a separate suit under S.11. This question has become academic, because S.11(2) has subsequently been amended by Act II of 1961, where under an application is competent. In view of the amendment the appellant need not file a separate suit. The further question is whether he is bound to pay court fee on this application as for a suit for redemption. The learned advocate of the appellant contends that the appellant has already filed a suit for redemption paying full court fee on the whole mortgage amount and therefore the appellant need not pay court fee over again as contemplated by sub-section 3 of S.11. The learned advocate of the appellant contends that the appellant has already filed a suit for redemption paying full court fee on the whole mortgage amount and therefore the appellant need not pay court fee over again as contemplated by sub-section 3 of S.11. S.11 applies to subsisting mortgages and the procedure contemplated by that section is as if a suit for redemption is filed. Therefore, if the appellant seeks to claim benefit of S.11 treating the mortgage as still subsisting, then he has to pay court fee as contemplated by sub-section 3 thereof on his application as if it were a suit for redemption. The fact that he has already paid court fee in a previous redemption suit is of no avail. Thus the appellant has to pay court fee as contemplated by sub-section 3 of S.11. 3. The next question (and this is the major question) is regarding the amount to be deposited under sub-section 2 of S.11. According to the learned advocate of the appellant, the appellant is bound to deposit only one half of the mortgage amount, i. e., Rs. 275/- and one half of that portion of the mortgage money, for which the appellant undertook to pay interest personally, that is Rs. 75/-, being half of Rs. 150/- for which he agreed to pay interest separately. On the other hand, the learned advocate of the respondents contends that under S.11(2)(b) the appellant has to deposit all the arrears of interest, which will amount to above Rs. 1,800/-. It is this controversy that has been seriously pressed before me. 4. S.11(1) starts with the words "subject to the provisions of S.25" and therefore, the learned advocate of the respondents contends that S.11 is controlled only by S.25 and not by any other section in the Act. He contends further that under sub-section 2 of S.11, three amounts have to be deposited : (a) one half of the mortgage amount, (b) where payment of interest to the mortgagee has been stipulated for, in respect of any portion of the mortgage amount in addition to the usufruct from the property and there has been arrears of such interest, such arrears and (c) the value of improvements, if any, effected subsequent to the date of the mortgage by the mortgagee in the properly mortgaged as determined by the court. These three amounts have to be deposited irrespective of any other provision in the Act or uncontrolled by any other provision. That, in short, is the contention of the learned counsel of the respondents. 5. The learned advocate of the appellant, on the contrary, contends that S.5 applies to all debts payable under the Act and therefore, the debts payable under S.11 also come within the scope of S.5. 1 would now consider this contention. S.5 does not directly confer any substantive right on any party. It only lays down the mode of determining the amount of a debt for the purpose of payment under the Act. The section lays down that for determining the amount of a debt for the purpose of payment under the Act, interest shall be calculated at the rate applicable to the debt under the law, custom, contract or decree or order of court under which it arises or at 5 per cent per annum simple interest, whichever is less, and credit shall be given for all sums paid or credited towards interest and only such amount, as interest thus calculated, shall be deemed payable together with the principal amount or such portion of it as is due. It provides further that, notwithstanding anything in the above mentioned provision, not more than one half of the principal shall be deemed payable or to have been payable towards interest, which accrued due till the commencement of the Act. The result is that, in determining the amount of a debt payable under the Act, only half the principal should be considered as arrears of interest and not more. 6. The further question for consideration is whether the amounts under S.11(2)(a) and (b) are debts and, if they are debts, in determining their amounts, whether S.5 is applicable. It cannot be doubted for a moment that the one half of the mortgage amount and the arrears of interest to be deposited by the mortgagor under clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section 2 of S.11 are debts under the Act. This has also been so laid down by a learned Judge of this Court in Kesava Pillai v. Narayana Pillai ( 1961 KLJ 225 = 1961 KLT 246 ). If these are debts, the only other question is whether S.5 applies in determining the amounts of these debts payable under the Act. This has also been so laid down by a learned Judge of this Court in Kesava Pillai v. Narayana Pillai ( 1961 KLJ 225 = 1961 KLT 246 ). If these are debts, the only other question is whether S.5 applies in determining the amounts of these debts payable under the Act. S.5 applies in the determination of all debts payable under the provisions of the Act and if the amounts to be deposited under clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (2) of S.11 are debts, the amounts of such debts have also to be calculated under S.5. S.5 thus applies in the present case as well. Therefore, in this case the appellant has to deposit one half of the mortgage amount, namely Rs. 275/-, and one half of that portion of the mortgage money for which he has agreed to pay interest, i. e., Rs. 75/-. 7. The next question raised is regarding the value of improvements. The learned advocate of the appellant contends that the value has already been adjudged and therefore, there is no need for valuing it over again. I find that the valuation has proceeded on a wrong basis, namely on the basis of the valuation adopted at the time of the previous decree. The previous redemption decree has been ignored and the proceeding under S.11 has been treated as if it were a fresh suit for redemption. Under that proceeding the mortgagee is entitled to the value of all the improvements effected by him subsequent to the date of the mortgage and therefore, the value of the improvements effected subsequent to the date of the mortgage has to be adjudged in accordance with clause (c) of sub-section (2) of S.11. This has to be done afresh ignoring the valuation adopted in the previous redemption decree. 8. The last question is whether the appellant is entitled to mesne profits. The question of mesne profits can arise only after the amounts, namely half the mortgage amount, the interest as indicated above and the value of improvements, are deposited. Of course he will be entitled to mesne profits after such deposit. In the present case the question of mesne profits does not arise at this stage, because the value of improvements has to be re-assessed. The question of mesne profits will arise only after such re-assessed value along with the other amounts is deposited. 9. Of course he will be entitled to mesne profits after such deposit. In the present case the question of mesne profits does not arise at this stage, because the value of improvements has to be re-assessed. The question of mesne profits will arise only after such re-assessed value along with the other amounts is deposited. 9. In the result I confirm the order of remand, but the Trial Court has to proceed with the matter in the light of the observations made in this judgment, the findings of the learned District Judge having been set aside. The appellant will pay court fee on half the mortgage amount and if he has already paid any court fee, credit will also be given for such payment. The Trial Court will pass a decree in terms of S.11(3) after having the value of improvements assessed by a fresh commission. In the circumstances, the parties are directed to bear their respective costs so far incurred in all the courts in these proceedings.