Judgment :- 1. Though other questions are also raised by the counsel of the appellant, arguments are confined only to a short question under Kerala Act XXIX of 1958. 2. A decree for redemption of a mortgage was passed in August 1955, under which the mortgagee-appellant was awarded Rs. 598.95 p. as value of improvements in addition to the mortgage money. The decree also provided for set off of mesne profits payable by him. In execution the matter came up to this Court; and after remand the subsequent improvements were valued by the execution court. Ultimately, it was found that the appellant was entitled to Rs. 2,674.50 p. as value of improvements. The additional amount was deposited only on 28th January 1964, though the mortgage money and the compensation awarded in the decree were deposited very much earlier. The dispute relates to the mesne profits whether mesne profits have to be paid from the date of suit or only from 28th January 1964. The primary court held that since the additional value of the improvements was deposited only on 28th January 1954, the appellant was liable to pay mesne profits only from that date; and the lower appellant court held that since there was a provision in the decree for set off of value of improvements against the mesne profits, the appellant was liable to pay mesne profits from the date of suit. 3. Mr. S. Bhoothalingam Iyer, the counsel of the appellant, draws my attention to a decision of Vaidialingam J. in Arunachalam Pillay Balakrishna Pillai v. Kalakody Paranjothy (A. S. No. 676 of 1961: 1955 KLT. S. N. 13) in a similar case. The decree in that case awarded Rs. 2,350.99 p, towards value of improvements and also declared the right of the mortgagor to get mesne profits from the mortgagee. In execution the subsequent improvements were valued under S.5 (3) of Act XXIX of 1958 and such value was fixed at Rs. 161.27-p. The dispute was whether the mortgagee was liable to pay mesne profits from the date of deposit of the value of improvements awarded in the decree or from the date of deposit of the value of the subsequent improvements assessed in execution. 161.27-p. The dispute was whether the mortgagee was liable to pay mesne profits from the date of deposit of the value of improvements awarded in the decree or from the date of deposit of the value of the subsequent improvements assessed in execution. Vaidialingam J. held construing S.4 and 5, especially sub-section 3 of S.5, that the mortgagee was liable to pay mesne profits only from the date of deposit of the value of the additional improvements assessed in execution. Sub-section 3 of S.5 provides for the fixation of compensation for improvements nude by the mortgagee subsequent to the date up to which compensation for improvements has been adjudged in the decree and for the revaluation of the improvements, for which compensation has been so adjudged, which and in so far as such revaluation is necessary with reference to the condition of such improvements at the time of eviction. The subsection provides that such value of improvements and other sums of money accruing due to the plaintiff subsequent to the date of the decree shall be determined by order of the court executing the decree; and that the decree shall be varied in accordance with such order. This clearly indicates that the executing court has power to vary the decree in accordance with the order passed by it in execution. It is also clear from S.4 that until compensation for improvements is paid, the mortgagee is entitled to continue in possession, so that his possession, as long as his improvements are not paid for, is not unlawful. The consequence is that by being so in possession he is not liable to pay mesne profits. Construing S.4 and subsection 3 of S.5 and also bearing in mind the meaning of mesne profits as defined in the Code of Civil Procedure, it is clear that the variation contemplated by sub-section 3 of S.5 relates to the payment of mesne profits as well and not merely to the quantum of the improvements by adding the value of the subsequent improvements. It follows that until the value of the subsequent improvements is also paid, the mesne profits payable by the mortgagee do not start accruing. In this connection, the wording of the latter half of sub-section 3 of S.5 relating to the other sums of money accruing due to the plaintiff may also be noted. It follows that until the value of the subsequent improvements is also paid, the mesne profits payable by the mortgagee do not start accruing. In this connection, the wording of the latter half of sub-section 3 of S.5 relating to the other sums of money accruing due to the plaintiff may also be noted. There fore, the mortgagor could not have set off the value of improvements against the mesne profits, which did not yet accrue. As already stated, the deposit of the additional value of improvements was only on 28th January 1964, from which date alone the mortgagee is liable to pay mesne profits. 4. The other points are not pressed. 5. The result is the decision of the lower appellate court is set aside and the decision of the trial court restored. 6. The counsel of the respondent points out that there is a mistake in the assessment of improvements. He contends that the amount is not Rs. 2,316.50p. but only Rs. 2,232.50p. The counsel of the appellant agrees to this; and the amount is corrected accordingly. 7. The set off regarding costs will stand. 8. In the circumstances, the parties are directed to bear their respective costs throughout. Allowed.