Judgment :- 1. Revision petitioners are defendants 6 and 8 in O. S.185/76 of the Munsiff Court, Ettumanoor. First respondent (decree holder) filed E. P. 12/83 to execute the decree for redemption of a mortgage. Preliminary decree and final decree were passed. Revision petitioners and the second respondent (10th judgment debtor) filed objections to the delivery notice contending that they are mortgages by assignments and that they have kudikidappu rights over the extent of property in their respective possession. First revision petitioner claims to be in possession of 3 cents of property. According to him, he has constructed a but and he is residing there. Second revision petitioner claims to be in possession of 13 cents of property and contends that he has constructed a but and that he has been residing there The executing court accepting the finding of the Land Tribunal held that the revision petitioners and the 10th respondent are not entitled to claim any kudikidappu rights over the property. 2. Counsel for the revision petitioners contends that the Land Tribunal's finding that the revision petitioners are not entitled to kudikidappu rights over the property is unsustainable and is opposed to the evidence adduced in the case. Counsel relying on Ratnamma v. Kamalamma Pillai (1983 KLT. 227) contended that the right which the petitioners claim under Explanation IV of S.2 (25) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act springs up only on redemption of the mortgage and therefore merely because the tenancy rights claimed by them were found negatived will not bar the contention of kudikidappu rights over the property. Counsel for the first respondent pointed out that the revision petitioners cannot claim kudikidappu rights as they are admittedly assignees of the mortgage rights from the original mortgagee. 3. The important question that has to be considered is as to whether an assignee mortgagee is entitled to claim kudikidappu rights under the Land Reforms Act. Counsel for the revision petitioners invited my attention to S.59A of the T. P. Act and contended that references to mortgagors and mortgagees include persons deriving title from them and therefore though Explanation IV to S.2 (25) of the Land Reforms Act does net specifically mention anything about the assignee mortgagee it is not of much consequence. Counsel for the revision petitioners invited my attention to S.59A of the T. P. Act and contended that references to mortgagors and mortgagees include persons deriving title from them and therefore though Explanation IV to S.2 (25) of the Land Reforms Act does net specifically mention anything about the assignee mortgagee it is not of much consequence. On the other hand, counsel for the first respondent contended that Explanation IV makes it clear that the benefit can be availed of only by the mortgagee and not by anybody else and therefore the revision petitioners who are admittedly assignees of the mortgage right are not entitled to claim kudikidappu rights in the property. 4. S.59A of the T. P. Act makes it clear that the references to mortgagors or mortgagees in Chapter IV of the Transfer of Property Act include persons deriving title from them. As S.59A makes it clear that the references to mortgagors or mortgagees would include persons deriving title from them so far as Chapter IV is concerned it is not possible to hold that reference to mortgagee in Explanation IV would include assignee mortgagee as well. Explanation IV to S.2(25) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act reads thus: "Where a mortgagee with possession erects for his residence a homestead, or resides in a but already in existence, on the land to which the mortgage relates, he shall, notwithstanding the redemption of the mortgage, be deemed to be a kudikidappukaran in respect of such homestead or hut, provided that at the time of the redemption (a) he has no other kudikidappu or residential building belonging to him, or any land exceeding three cents in any city or major municipality or five cents in any other municipality or ten cents in any Panchayat area or township, in possession either as owner or as tenant, on which he could erect a homestead; or (b) his annual income does not exceed two thousand rupees". To attract Explanation IV it must be established that the mortgagee has erected for his residence a homestead or that he is residing in a but already in existence on the land to which the mortgage relates. Further, conditions (a) and (b) also will have to be satisfied. There is no indication to show that Explanation IV can be availed of by an assignee mortgagee as well. Further, conditions (a) and (b) also will have to be satisfied. There is no indication to show that Explanation IV can be availed of by an assignee mortgagee as well. Words in Explanation IV are clear and categoric to include only the mortgagee with possession of the property. It is not possible to read into the above Explanation that assignee mortgagees would also be entitled to its benefit. It appears that the intention of the legislature is only to protect mortgagees who fall within the category enumerated in Explanation IV. The benefit conferred by Explanation IV can be misused if it is held that assignee mortgagee would also be entitled to the benefits under the Explanation. The mortgagee who is really not entitled to the benefit mentioned in Explanation IV can assign his right to a person who may satisfy the conditions to torpedo the claims of the mortgagor even at a time, when he knows that the suit for redemption is likely to be decreed. In this context it would be useful to refer to the definition of tenant in the Land Reforms Act. Definition of the tenant includes the heir, assignee or legal representative. Explanation to S.106 of the Land Reforms Act makes it clear that lessee includes a legal representative or assignee of the lessee. Thus, from the Act itself it can be seen that so far as tenants are concerned their assignees are also given the benefits under the Act. So far as Explanation IV to S.2 (25) is concerned there is no provision which enables the assignees to claim kudikidappu rights. It makes clear that the mortgagee with possession of the property and who erects a homestead of his own for his residence or resides in a but already in existence in the property and also satisfying conditions (a) and (b) can claim kudikidappu rights. Thus, the position is clear that assignee mortgagee cannot claim kudikidappu benefits under S.2 (25) Explanation IV of the Land Reforms Act. 5. As admittedly, the revision petitioners are assignee mortgagees and as it is also admitted that that they constructed huts they cannot claim kudikidappu rights in the property. There is no merit in the C.R.P. and hence the same is dismissed. There is no order as to costs.