Judgment :- 1. The appeal arises out of an application filed under S.11 (2) to (5) of Act 31 of 1958. The point to be decided is whether S.25 (d) of Act 31 of 1958 is a bar to the application. It is admitted that if the said provision applies the application is not maintainable. S.25 (d) of Act 31 of 1958 reads thus: "Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to mortgages having any one or more of the following incidents: (d) where the mortgagee has constructed a residential building in the property mortgaged and has been living therein and has effected improvements in the said property" The appellant-mortgagee contended that the above clause will apply and therefore the respondent is not entitled to claim relief under S.11 (2) to (5) of Act 31 of 1958. The courts below following Kunhukutty Amma v. Kumaranunni Nair 1961 KLT. 451 held that the above provision has no application. The question which was considered in the decision referred to is whether a provision for payment of purappad in a mortgage will tantamount to a provision for payment of michavaram, rent or customary dues within the meaning of S.25 (c) of the Act. Raghavan, J. while holding that it is not so observed at page 454: "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." And again said at page 455: "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." We are afraid that the above statements are not warranted by the wording of S.25 of the Act. The said section exempts only certain mortgages from the provisions of Act 31 of 1958 and not merely mortgages having any incidents of lease. The view taken by Raghavan J. in Kunhukutty Amma v. Kumaranunni Nair, 1961 KLT. The said section exempts only certain mortgages from the provisions of Act 31 of 1958 and not merely mortgages having any incidents of lease. The view taken by Raghavan J. in Kunhukutty Amma v. Kumaranunni Nair, 1961 KLT. 451 that a provision for purappad in a deed of mortgage is not equivalent to a provision mentioned in S.25 (c) of Act 31 of 1958 has been followed in Alikoya v. Lekshmi Amma 1967 KLT. 65. But from that it does not follow that for the applicability of S.25 the transaction should be something more than a mere mortgage. If in the property mortgaged the mortgagee has constructed a residential building and has been living there and has effected improvements in the property it is sufficient to exempt the mortgage from the operation of Act 31 of 1953. We have therefore no hesitation to hold that the application is maintainable. We set aside the decision of the courts below and send back the petition to the trial court for deciding whether the conditions prescribed by S.25 (d) have been made out. We make it clear that we have not disturbed the direction of the appellate judge for giving the respondent an opportunity to pay the deficit court fee. The second appeal is thus allowed. No costs.