JUDGMENT K.S. Paripoornan, J. 1. The 1st defendant in O S. No. 308 of 1963, 1st Additional Munsiff's Court, Neyyattinkara, is the appellant. The suit was one for redemption of Ext. P1 mortgage dated 30-3-1936 (17-8-1111). Ext P1 is styled as Otti Kuzhikanam. The extent of the property was 13/4 cents. The suit had a chequered career. The minimal facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as follows: A preliminary decree was passed on 31-5-1965. The final decree was passed on 6-6-1967. In appeal S. A. No. 1211 of 1973. this court ordered a remit. The Trial Court was directed to pass a fresh final decree in accordance with law and in the light of the observations contained in the said judgment. Thereafter, in the Trial Court the defendants claimed the benefit of S.4A (1) (b) and 4 A (1) (c) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. The Trial Court negatived the said claim. In appeal by the 1st defendant, the learned Subordinate Judge, Trivandrum by his judgment dated 4-1-1979, in A. S. No. 373 of 1978, concurred with the said decision. The 1st defendant has come up in Second Appeal. 2. At the time of admission, the following question of law was formulated as a substantial question of law arising for consideration in the Second Appeal: ''Whether the appellant is entitled to the benefits under S.4A (i) (c) of the K. L. R. Act." 3. Appellant's counsel Mr. B Reghunathan contended that on a perusal of Ext. P1 mortgage deed, it will be evident that the subject matter of the mortgage was 13/4 cents of land. There is no evidence to show that there were trees in the land mortgaged. The appellant has constructed a substantial building in such land before 1-1-1970 On these premises, it is contended that S.4A (1) (c) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act is squarely applicable. The courts below were in error in negativing the said plea. Respondents' counsel, Mr. B. Krishnamoni, contended that having regard to the situation and lie of the property, which abuts on a public road and the purpose for which the land was mortgaged, namely to construct a building, it cannot be stated that the land comprised in the mortgage was waste land at the time of mortgage. Mr. Respondents' counsel, Mr. B. Krishnamoni, contended that having regard to the situation and lie of the property, which abuts on a public road and the purpose for which the land was mortgaged, namely to construct a building, it cannot be stated that the land comprised in the mortgage was waste land at the time of mortgage. Mr. Krishnamoni contended that it may even be that at the time of the mortgage the land was a vacant land, but it is a far cry to say that it is waste land at the time of mortgage. So, the appellant is not entitled to the benefit of S.4A(1) (c) of the KLR Act. 4. On hearing the rival contentions of counsel appearing for both sides, I am inclined to accept the submissions of Respondents' counsel. S.4A(1) (c) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act is as follows: "4A. Certain mortgagees and lessees of mortgagers to be deemed tenants [1] Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any law or in any contract, custom or usage, or in any judgment, decree or order of court, a mortgagee with possession of land, other than land principally planted with rubber, coffee, tea or cardamom, or the lessee of a mortgagee of such land shall be deemed to be a tenant if- XX XX XX XX XX (c) the land comprised in the mortgage was waste land at the time or mortgage or land to which the Madras Preservation of Private Forests Act, 1949, would have applied if that Act had been in force at the time of mortgage, and- (i) the mortgagee or lessee was holding such land for a continuous period of not less than thirty years immediately preceding the commencement of the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act 1969 and (ii) the mortgagee or lessee has effected substantial improvements on such land before such commencement. xx xx xx xx xx Explanation VII - For the purposes of clause (c) (i) xx xx xx xx (ii) a land shall be deemed to be waste land notwithstanding the existence of scattered trees thereon." , 5. The short but the crucial question that arises for consideration is whether the land comprised in the mortgage Ext P1 was waste land at that time. As stated, the extent of the land is 13/4 cents of land. The short but the crucial question that arises for consideration is whether the land comprised in the mortgage Ext P1 was waste land at that time. As stated, the extent of the land is 13/4 cents of land. Ext P1 shows that the mortgage was executed for the purpose of constructing a building. It is further evident from Ext. P1 that it is situate on the side of a public road and there are roads on the other two sides as well. Is it possible to say that such a land is waste land as specified in Sec 4A(1)(c) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act? The answer can only be in the negative. In State of Gujarat v. Gujarat Revenue Tribunal ( AIR 1980 SC 91 ) at page 95 para 16, the Supreme Court held as follows: Now, the expression 'waste lands' has a well defined legal connotation. It means lands which are desolate, abandoned, and not fit ordinarily for use for building purposes. In Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, 3rd Edn. Vol.2, p. 2510, the meaning of the word 'waste'' is given as:- 1. Waste or desert land, uninhabited or sparsely inhabited and uncultivated country; a wild and desolate region; 2. A piece of land not cultivated or used for any put pose, and producing little or no herbage or wood. In legal use, a piece of such land not in any man's occupation but lying common. 3. A devastated region." In Mathai Varkey v. Marram [ 1969 KLT 503 ] at page 505 Krishna Iyer, J held as follows: "4. What is a waste land ? There is no definition in the statute, but it is fairly clear that persons who, as mortgagees or other wise, were allowed to improve land which was otherwise lying desolate, neglected or abandoned and who toiled thereon, made substantial improvements and thereby made it garden land or other fruitful holding, should be protected from eviction. This shows that at the time of the mortgage, when the mortgagee is inducted into possession, the land must be such as to be designated as neglected, uncultivated and not put to any serious agricultural use. Since S.4A also contemplates the holding having been improved substantially by the mortgagee-, improvement in this context, must generally mean by planting of fruit-bearing trees etc, we cannot postulate that waste land should be unculturable land, incapable of tillage. Since S.4A also contemplates the holding having been improved substantially by the mortgagee-, improvement in this context, must generally mean by planting of fruit-bearing trees etc, we cannot postulate that waste land should be unculturable land, incapable of tillage. Thus, the object of the statute, the context in which the provision is made and the effect of the various clauses in S.4A lead to the inference that a waste land is one which at the time of the mortgage was rather neglected and not put to any agricultural use but at the same time is a kind of land which can be put to agricultural use by the effort of man" 6. In the light of the above judicial pronouncements, I have no doubt in my mind that at the time of Ext. P1 mortgage, the land comprised in the mortgage was not waste land. The Trial Court held that taking into consideration the small extent of the property and the location of the property, that is a place where a building could be constructed for conducting shops; it is evident that the plaint schedule property could be put to the use of constructing buildings rather than using it for agricultural purposes. On this basis, the plea of the 1st defendant, based on S.4A(1)(c) of the KLR Act was repelled. In appeal, the learned Subordinate Judge held that it is clear from the evidence that the land is a building site. Its extent is less that two cents and it is situate by the side of the main road . So, he concluded that the 1st defendant cannot invoke the benefit of S.4A(l)(c) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. There is no error either in the reasoning or in the conclusion of the courts below. The judgments and decrees of the courts below are justified in law. 7. No interference is called for in this appeal. The judgments and decrees of the courts below are affirmed. The Second Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.