Judgment :- 1. This appeal is directed against the remand order in A. S. No. 38 of 1980 of the District court, Trivandrum. 2. The facts can be summarised as follows: The property of which the suit property was a portion originally belonged to Ayyan Velutha. He executed Ottikuzhikanam deed in favour of Ceelia Ummal on 1-2-1062. The mortgage right devolved on one P.K. Muhammed Ali. Velutha Ayyan, a heir of Ayyan Velutha executed another Ottikuzhikanam in 1077 in favour of P. K Mohammed Ali in renewal. The mortgage right was assigned in favour of Mytheenkunju under Ext. D in 1085 However, in 1113 Mohammed Ali executed Ottikuzhikanam which under Ext. I assignment of 1119 came to vest in the defendants. Meanwhile Velutha Ayyan and his children under Ext. H of 1089 sold the properties to Aysha Ummal, who in turn, sold her right in 3 03 acres of land in favour of the plaintiffs under Ext. A of 1120. Plaintiffs along with Aysha Ummal filed a suit, O. S. No. 1392 of 1120 for redemption of the mortgage. The suit was decreed. At the stage of execution the property involved therein except the present suit property was delivered. In regard to the present suit property (2/3 of 19 cents in survey no. 1879/6- i.e., 12 2/3 cents) the guardian of minor second defendant offered obstruction. The second defendant was claiming possession under the Otti of 1113. The trial court upheld the obstruction. Thereupon the plaintiffs filed the present suit for declaration of their title to the suit property and recovery of possession with mesne profits. 3. The second defendant in his written statement contended that the decree was not binding on him as he was not represented in the suit, that the suit property did not belong to Ayyan Velutha, that it was government land not included in the plaintiffs' document or prior documents relied on by the plaintiffs, that P. K. Mohammad Ali continued to be is possession after the execution of Ext. D assignment of 1085 and be executed a mortgage deed in 1113 in favour of the predecessor of the second defendant and the plaintiff's right, if any, is barred by limitation and adverse possession, 4. The trial court originally upheld the second defendant's contention and dismissed the suit with costs. D assignment of 1085 and be executed a mortgage deed in 1113 in favour of the predecessor of the second defendant and the plaintiff's right, if any, is barred by limitation and adverse possession, 4. The trial court originally upheld the second defendant's contention and dismissed the suit with costs. In appeal, the judgment was reversed and the suit was decreed for recovery of possession and mesne profits upholding the plaintiffs' title. In S.A. No. 1462/60 a learned judge of this court set aside the decree of the appellate court and restored the judgment of the trial court. In appeal against this judgment, A.S. No. 422/1964, a Division Bench of this court upheld the plaintiff's title and found that the suit property was included in the mortgage and the defendants cannot deny title of the successors in interest of the mortgagor, but then defendants were not bound by the redemption decree. It was found that Mohammed Ali's rights had been redeemed in the earlier decree and defendants were sub-mortgagees is possession under Mohammed Ali. Accordingly a decree was granted in favour of the plaintiffs directing to recover possession of the property on payment of the proportionate mortgage amount due under 1113 mortgage and value of improvements to be decided in the final decree proceedings as well as costs of the proceedings. 5. Final decree proceedings were initiated at the instance of the plaintiffs. Second defendant claimed to be a deemed tenant under S.4A(1)(b) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963. The trial court held that second defendant is not entitled to value of improvements or to any protection under the Act and passed a final decree allowing the second defendant to recover possession on payment of the proportionate mortgage amount. The trial court took the view that the second defendant is only sub mortgagee in possession and therefore cannot be treated as tenant under the provisions of S.4A(1) (b) of the Act. In appeal the appellate court held that S.4A(1)(b) of the Act will apply to a sub mortgagee in possession also. The appellate court set aside the final decree and remanded the proceedings to the trial court for determining whether the second defendant is a tenant under S, 4A (1)(b) of the Act and to allow both sides an opportunity to adduce evidence. The remand order is new challenged. 6. The appellate court set aside the final decree and remanded the proceedings to the trial court for determining whether the second defendant is a tenant under S, 4A (1)(b) of the Act and to allow both sides an opportunity to adduce evidence. The remand order is new challenged. 6. The appellate court has not held that the second defendant is a deemed tenant contemplated under S.4A (1)(b) of the Act. That is because there is pc proof in regard to the ether ingredients contemplated in the provision. Under S.4A certain mortgagees and lessees of mortgagees under certain circumstances will be deemed to be tenants. Even assuming that the sub-mortgagee in possession of land is a mortgagee under the provisions of S.4A(1)(b), in order to attract the provision second defendant has to prove certain other ingredients. It is to enable him to prove those ingredients that the appellate court remanded the case. The short question for consideration is whether the sub-mortgagee in possession of land can be treated as a mortgagee in possession of land for the purpose of S.4A of the Act. 7. We will now refer to the decisions placed before us. The earliest decision referred to is by Viswanatha Iyer, J. in Subramania Iyer v. Lakshmikutty Amma (1976 K L.T. 389). The court had no occasion to consider whether a sub-mortgagee in possession could invoke the benefit under S.4A. The question which arose for consideration was whether a mortgagee could tack on the earlier possession of a sub mortgagee for the purpose of computing the period of fifty years under S.4A(1)(a). By explanation II in computing the period of fifty years under clause (a) the period during which the predecessor-in-interest of the mortgagee or lessee was holding the property shall also be taken into account. The court held that the sub mortgagee, who was in possession earlier could not be regarded as predecessor-in-interest of the mortgagee and therefore his possession cannot be availed by the mortgagee. A sub mortgagee is in possession of his own right and is not holding the property on behalf of any one of the mortgagors. His interest is not identical with that of the mortgagee. 8. In Selvi Ammal v. Joseph Gomez (1976 K L.T. 868 (FB)) a Full Bench of this court held that Land Reforms Act would apply to non-agricultural lands also. His interest is not identical with that of the mortgagee. 8. In Selvi Ammal v. Joseph Gomez (1976 K L.T. 868 (FB)) a Full Bench of this court held that Land Reforms Act would apply to non-agricultural lands also. It was argued before the Full Bench that the ingredients of S.4A were not satisfied in the instant case. The mortgage deed therein comprised several items and the suit was for redeeming only one item which had been sub mortgaged by the mortgagee. The sub mortgage recited that the mortgagee would retain the building as well as coconut tree and the rest will be enjoyed by the sub mortgagee. The court explained the scope of the section and remanded the suit for fresh disposal. Incidentally the Full Bench observed "second defendant-sub mortgagee admittedly cannot claim the benefits of S.4A". In ether words it was admitted that the second defendant therein was not a person who could invoke S.4A. Therefore the court had no occasion to decide this question. It is also not clear for what reason second defendant conceded that he cannot claim the benefit of S.4A. In our opinion the decision cannot be regarded as an authority for the proposition that the sub mortgagee in possession of the property is not eligible to claim the benefit of S.4A. 9. In C. J. Abraham v. N. P. Thomas (1979 K.L.T. 257) M.P. Menon. J. followed the dictum laid down in Subramania Iyer's case (1976 K.L.T. 389). The court had no occasion to consider the question in issue in the present case. 10. In Chellamma Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai (1980 K.L.T. 206) Balagangadharan Nair, J. had to consider an identical question. The purchaser of equity of redemption, after redeeming the mortgage sought to redeem the sub-mortgage. The question arose whether S.4A(1) (a) could be invoked. It was argued that the defendant being a sub-mortgagee is not a mortgagee as contemplated in the provision. The court observed: "A sub mortgage is created by partially transferring the mortgage and the sub mortgagee is thus a derivative mortgagee, owning pan of the mortgage. He is to a limited extent an assignee of the mortgage and although the assignment has been made by the mortgagee and can be redeemed by him, he is liable to redemption by the mortgagor who created the head mortgage as he is a partial or limited assignee of that mortgagee. He is to a limited extent an assignee of the mortgage and although the assignment has been made by the mortgagee and can be redeemed by him, he is liable to redemption by the mortgagor who created the head mortgage as he is a partial or limited assignee of that mortgagee. They are bound by privity of estate, each having correlated rights of the mortgagor and mortgagee in the same property, the rights being modified by the existence of the head mortgage so long as it lasts. In the present case the bead mortgage had been redeemed and the suit is by the owner of the equity of redemption to redeem the outstanding sub mortgage. The appellant is a mortgagee even in relation to the respondent, albeit it is by virtue of a partial or limited transfer of the original mortgage." According to the learned counsel for the appellant, this decision requires reconsideration. 11. Reference was also made to a decision of the Division Bench of this court in Raghavan Nair v. Anandavally Amma (1986 KLT. 623). In that case a junior member of a tarward redeemed a mortgage granted by the tarward. When he was sought to be redeemed he invoked S.4A of the Act. The court held that by payment of the mortgage debt the junior member became a creditor and could not avail of the instrument and therefore cannot be regarded as a mortgagee. The court also held that possession of property by mortgagee was not possession by the sub-mortgagee and in the face of possession by sub mortgagee, mortgagee cannot be taken to be in continuous possession. This decision also does not help us in deciding the issue in controversy. 12. S.4A(1)(b) reads thus: 4A. The court also held that possession of property by mortgagee was not possession by the sub-mortgagee and in the face of possession by sub mortgagee, mortgagee cannot be taken to be in continuous possession. This decision also does not help us in deciding the issue in controversy. 12. S.4A(1)(b) reads thus: 4A. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained is any law or in any contract, custom or usage, or is 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 a) xx xx xx xx b) the mortgagee or lessee has constructed a building for his own residence in the land comprised in the mortgage and he was occupying such building for such purpose for a continuous period of not less than twenty years immediately preceding such commencement: Provided that a mortgagee or lessee falling under this clause shall not be deemed to be a tenant if he, or, where he is a member of a family, such family was holding any other land exceeding two acres in extent on the date of publication of the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Bill 1968 in the gazette or c) xx xx xx xx Explanation I For the purposes of this sub-section, In computing the period of continuous possession or occupation by a lessee, the period during which the mortgagee was in possession or occupation, as the case may be shall also be, taken into account. II In computing the period of fifty years referred to in clause (a) or the period of thirty years referred to in clause (c), the period during which the predecessor-in-interest or predecessors-in-interest of the mortgagee or lessee was or were holding the properly shall also be taken into account. III For the purposes of clause (b) (i) 'mortgagee' or 'leases' shall include a predecessor-in-interest of the mortgagee or lessee, as the case may be. (ii) building includes a hut. - xx xx xx xx xx xx" 13. From the scheme of the provision it is seen that the provision is intended to benefit the mortgagee in possession of land and the lessee under the mortgagee. (ii) building includes a hut. - xx xx xx xx xx xx" 13. From the scheme of the provision it is seen that the provision is intended to benefit the mortgagee in possession of land and the lessee under the mortgagee. If the person in possession is a lessee of the property, it is unnecessary to make any specific provision since he can be a tenant as defined in the Act. The provision it intended to benefit the mortgagee with possession of land or tenant of the mortgagee. It has been clarified that 'mortgagee' includes 'predecessor-in-interest of the mortgagee'. We do not find anything in the provision to indicate that the legislature intended that the expression 'mortgagee with possession of land' should not be taken to include 'sub mortgagee with possession of land'. 14. The expression 'mortgagee' is not defined in the Act. As defined in S.58 of the Transfer of Property Act "a mortgage is the transfer of an interest in specific immoveable property for the purpose of securing the payment of money advanced or to be advanced by way of loan, an existing or future debt or the performance of an engagement which may give rise to a pecuniary liability." The transferor is called mortgagor and the transferee mortgagee. The full owner can of course execute a mortgage; even a person who does not have full right in the property such as mortgagee can execute a mortgage. Where a mortgagee in turn executes a mortgage, i.e., a sub mortgage, that also is a transfer of an interest in immovable property for the purpose of securing the payment of money. Transferor is a mortgagor and the transferee is a mortgagee. Where the mortgagor himself is only a mortgagee and he himself executes a mortgage he is called as a sub mortgagee; however the transaction is a mortgage governed by the provisions of Chapter V of the Transfer of Property Act. There is nothing in S.4A of the Land Reforms Act indicating any legislative intent to the effect that "mortgagee" excludes "sub-mortgagee". We agree with the view taken in Chellamma Pillai's case (1980 KLT. 206) and hold that the sub mortgagee is entitled to invoke the provisions of S.4A of the Act, if he satisfies the other conditions contemplated therein. 15. There is nothing in S.4A of the Land Reforms Act indicating any legislative intent to the effect that "mortgagee" excludes "sub-mortgagee". We agree with the view taken in Chellamma Pillai's case (1980 KLT. 206) and hold that the sub mortgagee is entitled to invoke the provisions of S.4A of the Act, if he satisfies the other conditions contemplated therein. 15. We therefore find no ground to interfere with the order of remand and accordingly dismiss the appeal, but without costs.