Judgment :- 1. The revision petitioner is the declarant in Ceiling Case No. 290 of 1973 on the file of the Taluk Land Board, Kunnathur, Adoor. The Taluk Land Board, by its order dated 26-5-1976, directed the revision petitioner, whose statutory family as on 1-1-1970 consisted of herself and her two minor children Valsala Devi Antharjanam and Ashok Kumar, to surrender an extent of 5.70.000 acres of land determined to be the extent of land held by her statutory family in excess of the ceiling area prescribed under the provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. 2. Counsel for the revision petitioner, Sri. C. K. Sivasankara Panicker, submitted that if the Taluk Land Board made a proper assessment as to the extent of land held by the revision petitioner and her daughter and son, who were minors as on 11-1-70, there would have been really no land to be surrendered by the statutory family. 3. Counsel submitted that the revision petitioner had in her declaration under S.85A of the Kerala Land Reforms Act given the details of the properties which were outstanding in the possession of the mortgagees, with respect to which the revision petitioner or her daughter or son, had only a right of equity of redemption. The Taluk Land Board has treated these properties outstanding in the possession of mortgagees, as those falling in the category of properties owned or held by the revision petitioner or the members of her statutory family. Counsel submits that S.83 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act makes it clear that a person in possession of a land as mortgagee has to account for it for the purpose of ceiling proceedings, and therefore the mortgagors also are not to be made liable to account for the very same property, as otherwise, there will be a duplication, and two sets of persons would be held liable to surrender the land, taking the view that the owner of the property includes mortgagor, while the mortgagee in possession also is liable to surrender the property. On a careful consideration of the provisions contained in S.83 and 85 of the Kerala Lard Reforms Act, read with the definition of the term 'owner' contained in S.2 (40) of the above Act, I am of the view that according to the scheme of the Act, it is the mortgagee in possession, not the mortgagor having equitable redemption, that has to account for the land involved in the transaction for the purpose of determining the extent of land held by the particular person. In this view hold that the Taluk Land Board was in error in not exempting the properties of the revision petitioner and the members of her statutory family, outstanding in the possession of mortgagees, from the extent of land deemed or determined to have been held by the revision petitioner's statutory family as on 1-1-1970. It may be that some of the properties which were outstanding on mortgage were subsequently redeemed by the revision petitioner or any member of her statutory family. Probably the provisions contained in S.87 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act may be attracted to such a situation; but nothing need be pronounced on that aspect of the matter as that is not an issue in the present proceedings. 4. For the foregoing reasons I allow the revision petition, set aside the impugned order, and remand the matter to the Taluk Land Board to ascertain the extent of land that was outstanding in the possession of the mortgagees, with respect to which property the revision petitioner and the other members of her statutory family were having only a right of equity of redemption, as on 1-1-1970; and, after recording a proper finding on this issue, to pass orders for deleting such extent from the total extent of the land determined to have been held by the statutory family of the revision petitioner as on 1-1-1970. As to what is to be done in regard to the land already taken possession of by the Taluk Land Board, and in regard to the disposal of the paddy harvested in pursuance of the order on C.M.P. No. 15570 of 1976, the Taluk Land Board may pass appropriate orders after hearing the contesting parties. 5. As to what is to be done in regard to the land already taken possession of by the Taluk Land Board, and in regard to the disposal of the paddy harvested in pursuance of the order on C.M.P. No. 15570 of 1976, the Taluk Land Board may pass appropriate orders after hearing the contesting parties. 5. Counsel for the revision petitioner has submitted that he has other contentions; but in view of the fact that when the properties, which were outstanding in the possession of the mortgagees, are excluded from the extent of land determined to have been held by the petitioner, the revision petitioner's statutory family will not be under obligation to surrender any land; and therefore, those questions need not be gone into in this revision. They are left open without being decided. There will be no order as to costs in the circumstances of the case. A carbon copy of this order may be granted to the Government Pleader free of charge and to the counsel for the revision petitioner on usual terms if applied for in that behalf. Allowed.