Judgment :- 1. This Second Appeal arises out of a suit filed by the appellant herein for enforcement of a mortgage Ext. P-1 dated 15 6 50 executed by defendants 1 to 8 (respondents herein) in favour of the plaintiff's predecessor-in-interest one Gopalan Nair for Rs. 2,000/-.13 items of properties were comprised in the mortgage and of these item 1 was usufructuarily mortgaged and items 2 to 13 were given on simple mortgage. The mortgage-deed contained a covenant for personal payment and also created a right in the mortgagee to bring all the mortgaged items to sale for realisation of his mortgage money. Item 1 was outstanding on lease and the mortgagee was authorised to evict the lessee and to reduce the property to his possession, and for this purpose the amount of Munpattam payable to the lessee was reserved with the mortgagee. The mortgagee was to collect and appropriate the profits or usufructs from item 1 and in addition, the mortgage-deed provided that the mortgagors should pay to the mortgagee an amount of Rs 50-9-0 per annum towards interest on the mortgage amount over and above the Pattam or profits from item 1. The plaintiff-appellant obtained an assignment of the mortgage right as per Ext. P-2 dated 7-3-53. Notwithstanding the provision contained in the mortgage-deed that the mortgagee was to recover possession of the property from the lessee on payment of the Munpattom amount reserved with him. no steps were taken by him in this regard and the property continued in the possession of the lessee. The suit was brought for recovery of the mortgage amount by sale of the suit properties in enforcement of the provision for sale contained in the document. 2. The defendants contended that they are agriculturists entitled to the benefit of Kerala Act 31/1958, that the mortgagee is entitled to realise only the principal amount with interest at the rate of 5 per cent per annum from the date of mortgage, that the amounts of Pattam received by the mortgagee from the lessee of item I has to be regarded as payment of interest and that if such amounts are taken into account and a proper appropriation made towards interest and capital, only an amount of Rs 257-43 is due to the mortgagee towards the mortgage debt. The trial court held that the profits realised by the mortgagee cannot be regarded as interest paid or credited and that therefore, the defendants are not entitled to have a reopening of the accounts by adjustment of the profits realised from item 1 towards interest and principal. The suit was therefore, decreed in terms of the plaint. 3. On appeal by the defendants to the District Court, Trichur, the lower appellate court took the view that inasmuch as the mortgagors had agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 50-9-0 annually to the mortgagee towards interest in addition to the profits from item 1, a rate of interest must be deemed to have been stipulated for in the mortgage and that therefore the defendants are entitled to relief under S.5 by a reopening of the accounts and by appropriating the income realised from item 1 towards interest and principal. In this view, the decree of the trial court was set aside and the case was remitted to the said court for the limited purpose of ascertaining the amount due under the mortgage on a recalculation as directed in the appellate judgment. The plaintiff has come up with this Second Appeal challenging the aforesaid decision of the learned District Judge. 4. The only question that arises for decision, therefore, is whether the profits realised by the mortgagee from item 1 of the mortgage are liable to be treated as amounts "paid or credited towards interest" within the meaning of S.5 of Kerala Act 31/1958. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the mortgage-deed did not provide for the taking of any account of the profits at the time of redemption and that the mortgagee was authorised to retain the entire profits from the land less the Michavaram payable to superior jenmi. There was to be no account of the profits and the mortgagee takes the benefit or the detriment as the case may be, of any rise or fall in the income of the property and there was no question of his making any payment to the mortgagor in case, the income exceeded any estimated figure nor of the mortgagor making good any deficit in case the income fell short of the estimate. In fact, there was not even any mention of the estimated profits from item 1 as is very often found in documents of possessory mortgage. In fact, there was not even any mention of the estimated profits from item 1 as is very often found in documents of possessory mortgage. This, the counsel urged is an additional factor which clearly indicated that there was no stipulation of any definite sum being due to the mortgagee as interest. It was also contended that the mere circumstance that in addition to the profits a fixed amount of Rs. 50-9-0 was payable by the mortgagor towards interest would not materially alter the legal position, because although this amount payable in cash was a fixed sum the profits realisable from item 1 remain an uncertain quantity in regard to which no accounting was ever contemplated. In support of the above contentions reliance was placed on a decision of this court reported in Koran Nambir v. Kunhi Kannan Nambir (1958 KLT. 754) where a division bench consisting of Sankaran & T. K. Joseph, JJ. has held on a construction of a similar document, that the income realised by the mortgagee from the mortgaged property pursuant to a provision for appropriation of the profits towards interest, cannot, in the absence of any stipulation for the taking of an account of the profits at the time of redemption, be treated as amounts "paid" towards interest. Their Lordships followed a Division Bench ruling of the Madras High Court reported in Manavala Ayyar v. Muhammad Yoosaf (AIR. 1943 Mad. 100). In the Madras case above cited the mortgage document contained the provision that in addition to the income from the mortgaged properties which the mortgagee was allowed to appropriate the mortgagor was to pay a sum of Rs. 250/- every year towards interest, but nevertheless, their Lordships held that this provision did not alter the position. It was held that the provisions of S.76(h) of the Transfer of Property Act are inapplicable to both cases alike namely, to cases where the mortgagee is to take the income from the property in lieu of interest and also to cases where he is to receive in addition to such income a fixed annual sum from the mortgagor and that the rents and profits received by the mortgagee without any liability to account to the mortgagor for any part thereof should not be taken into account as payments received from the mortgagor within the meaning of S.8(2) of Madras Act 4/1938. 5. 5. It is true that the above cases were governed by the provisions of the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act, 4/1938; but the principle laid down therein that receipt of profits by the mortgagee from the property usufructuarily mortgaged would not in the absence of any provision for an accounting regarding profits, constitute payment by the mortgagor to the mortgagee, would apply equally to a case governed by S.Sof Kerala Act 31/1958. There is however, a slight difference in the wording between S.8 of Madras Act 4/1938 and S.5 of the Kerala Act 31/1958 inasmuch as the former refers only to sums "paid" by the debtor whereas the latter refers to all "sums paid or credited towards interest." The question therefore, is whether by reason of the receipt of the profits by the mortgagee any sum can be said to have been "credited" towards interest. There cannot be any crediting towards interest unless there was a stipulation to pay any definite sum by way of interest. When once it is found that there was no liability on the part of the mortgagee to account for the profits nor any obligation on the part of the mortgagor to make good any amount if the profits realised from the property fell below any stipulated figure it is difficult to hold that any definite sum had been fixed as due to the mortgagee by way of interest. In the absence of any such fixation of a definite rate of interest it is impossible to conceive of any amounts being credited towards interest. The appropriation of profit by the mortgagee cannot, therefore, be said to amount to any settlement of account or part adjustment of any subsisting claim for interest. I am clearly of the view that the profits realised by the mortgagee from the property mortgaged under Ext. P-1 would not constitute sums paid or credited towards interest. 6. The learned District Judge took the view that Ext. P-1 being an anomalous mortgage whereunder the mortgagors had agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 50-9-0 annually to the mortgagee, the Pattam received from the tenant in possession of item 1 and the amount of Rs 50-9-0, should be taken as the interest due on the mortgage amount. Even though on the date of the mortgage item I was in the possession of a tenant, the recitals in Ext. 50-9-0 annually to the mortgagee, the Pattam received from the tenant in possession of item 1 and the amount of Rs 50-9-0, should be taken as the interest due on the mortgage amount. Even though on the date of the mortgage item I was in the possession of a tenant, the recitals in Ext. P-1 show beyond doubt that it was not the intention of the parties that the tenant's possession should be continued and that the mortgagee should collect only the Pattam due from him. On the other hand, the intention clearly was that the mortgagee should evict the tenant and reduce the properties to his possession and realise the full profits from the property. It is for this specific purpose that the Munpattom amount repayable to the tenant was reserved with the mortgagee from out of the consideration advanced under Ext. P-1. Hence the circumstance that item 1 was outstanding with a tenant on the date of the mortgage does not in any way, alter the legal position and the mortgage was one under which the mortgagee was allowed to take possession of the property and to appropriate the profits therefrom without any liability to account to the mortgagor for any portion thereof. The principles laid down in Manavala Ayyar v. Muhammad Yoosuf (AIR. 1943 Mad. 100) and Koran Nambiar v. Kunhi Kannan Nambiar (1958 KLT. 754) are, therefore, fully applicable to the case. The lower appellate court is, therefore, wrong in holding that the profits realised from the property must be regarded as payments towards interest and that the mortgagor is entitled to have the said amounts adjusted towards interest and principal under S.5 of Kerala Act 31/58. 7. The Second Appeal is, therefore, allowed, the decree of the lower appellate court is set aside and that of the trial court restored with costs here and in the lower appellate court. No leave. Allowed.