JUDGMENT S. Padmanabhan, J. 1. Suit property belonged in jenmom to the Avanipuram Devaswom. It was given possession to the tharavad of the plaintiffs on karaima for doing kazhakam services in the temple. Sankaran Nair, father of the defendant, was also a member of the tharavad and he is the uncle of the plaintiffs, being their mother's brother. There was Ext. A1 partition in the tharavad in 1098. The plaint schedule property was included in the share allotted to the branch of the plaintiffs and their mother. Kazhakam services were directed in the partition deed to be performed by the four members, including Sankaran Nair, in rotation. Admittedly, Sankaran Nair was performing the services till his death in 1952. The case of the plaintiffs is that thereafter themselves and the defendant were performing the services. They also maintained that all along they were in possession of the property. But the case of the defendant is that Sankaran Nair was in possession of the property and performing services till his death and thereafter he is in exclusive possession and services were rendered by him alone. It is his further case that he attorned to the Devaswom and an attempt made in 1962 to take forcible possession from him was successfully resisted jointly by him and the Devaswom. 2. It was in this background that the original of Ext. A2 mortgage for the suit property happened to be executed by the plaintiffs in favour of the defendant and one Raman Pillai for Rs. 400/- with a term of two years. From Ext.A2 it is seen that the document was presented for registration by Raman Pillai. Defendant is said to be a dependant of Raman Pillai, who subsequently died unmarried and issueless. Nobody is impleaded as his heir on the assumption that his right over the mortgage also vested on the defendant as per the terms of Ext. A2 itself. That is how Ext. A2 was worded. The suit for redemption was filed as if the defendant is in possession under Ext. A2. 3. Defendant disclaimed the original of Ext. A2 and said that it is a fraudulent document executed behind his back in an attempt to get he property when the attempt to take forcible possession failed. He claimed independent possession under the Devaswom and said that he never took the mortgage or pay any amount. A2. 3. Defendant disclaimed the original of Ext. A2 and said that it is a fraudulent document executed behind his back in an attempt to get he property when the attempt to take forcible possession failed. He claimed independent possession under the Devaswom and said that he never took the mortgage or pay any amount. The authority of the plaintiffs to execute such a document was also denied. 4. Apart from the evidence of the first plaintiff as PW 1, there is nothing to prove Ext. A2. No attesting witness was examined. DW 1 is the defendant. DWs. 2 and 3 are two independent neighbours. DW 4 is an officer of the Devaswom. All of them said that in continuation of his father, the defendant is performing kazhakam services and he is in possession of the property. The facts that the defendant is performing kazhakam services and he is in possession of the property are now admitted also. The only question is whether his possession is under Ext. A2 or not. For that there is absolutely no evidence. 5. Original of Ext. A2 is not before court. There is no evidence to show that it came into the possession of the defendant or it was accepted and acted upon by him. He had no need to advance Rs. 400/- to take a mortgage for a property which was already in his possession and over which the plaintiffs had no manner of right. In 1961, under Ext. A3, a sale deed was taken jointly in the names of the defendant and Raman Pillai. PW 1 said that they are friends and the defendant was a dependant of Raman Pillai and both were residing together; Raman Pillai had no wife and children and under the terms of Ext. A2, his mortgage tight also must devolve on the defendant after his death. Ext. A2 is seen produced for registration by Raman Pillai. These are the circumstances which weighed with the courts below in finding that Ext. A2 was accepted and acted upon by the defendant and hence he is bound to surrender the property. The suit was decreed and the decision was confirmed in appeal. That is how the second appeal was filed by the defendant. 6. Legal and factual questions were not considered by the courts below in the proper perspective. The mere fact that Ext. The suit was decreed and the decision was confirmed in appeal. That is how the second appeal was filed by the defendant. 6. Legal and factual questions were not considered by the courts below in the proper perspective. The mere fact that Ext. A3 was taken in the joint names of the defendant and Raman Pillai can, at the best, be taken only as a circumstance probabilising the genuineness of the original of Ext. A2. The fact that from the copy it is seen that the original was produced for registration by Raman Pillai by itself cannot be taken as proof of that fact. The original was not called and the Sub Registrar was not examined. The possibility of impersonation cannot be ruled out. That is all the more so when the circumstances indicate that nobody is likely to take a mortgage for the property from the plaintiffs, who had no ownership or possession. They were also interested in creating a document to get possession. In these circumstances, the plaintiffs had to prove that the original of Ext. A2 was accepted and acted upon by the defendant and he paid the amount. No such evidence was even attempted. Therefore, the possibility is that the original of Ext. A2 is a fabrication. Ext. A5 thandaper account cannot help the plaintiff in any way. It contains several names including that of the defendant. Other names ere those of Narayana Panicker, Sankaranarayana Pillai and Padmanabha Pillai. PW 1 would say that all these are his names. It is difficult to accept that version. 7. Even taking for granted that the original of Ext. A2 is a genuine document, which was accepted by the defendant, it is not going to improve the case of the plaintiffs. The property is admittedly service inam land belonging to the Devaswom and the tharavad had only possession by way of remuneration for doing kazhakam services. Such possession cannot be adverse to the Devaswom, as held in Kamalu Pujarthi v. Laxminarayana Bhatta (AIR 1960 Mysore 185), Govinda Panicker Narayana Panicker v. Kottabhagom NSS Karayogam and another (1962 (1) KLR 398) and Rajagopala Gounder and others v. Maruthamuthu Asari (AIR 1933 Madras 668) Holders of service inam lands have absolutely no right over the land except the right to enjoy when the services are continued. Ownership is with the Devaswom and the property could be resumed at any time. Ownership is with the Devaswom and the property could be resumed at any time. Right is nothing more than that of a tenant at will. There is no heritable or transferable right and the karaima holder cannot transfer possession also, which is linked with the services. 8. Now the lands stand vested in the Government under S.3 of the Kerala Service Inam Lands (Vesting and Enfranchisement) Act, 1981 (for short the Act). All right, title and interest of the land owners held by holders thus vested in Government abolishing services or obligations attached to service inam lands free of all encumbrances. That means, any encumbrance created stands extinguished. Under S.5, the land holders are entitled to get assignment of the right, title and interest of the land owner vested in the Government free of all encumbrances. Procedure for that purpose is provided in S.6, 7, 8 and 9. Under S.18, there is bar against the jurisdiction of civil court also on these matters. When the land is vested in the Government free of all encumbrances and the land holder is given the right to get assignment of such rights, what follows is that nobody else is entitled to enforce any right. 9. I have already stated that the plaintiffs were not in possession and they were not performing the services. Even if they were considered to be in possession and they parted with possession only under Ext. A2, they cannot come under the definition of 'holders' entitled to assignment. Under S.2(c), land holder entitled to assignment is the person holding service inam land. 'To hold" is defined under S.2(h) to be in actual possession. Whether it be under Ext. A2 or independent of it, the defendant; alone is the person in actual possession and there cannot be any subsisting encumbrance between his possession and the ownership vested in the Government. Under the explanation to S.2(c), where any service inam land is in the possession of a person, other than the person to whom the land was granted for performing services or any of his successors-in-interest, the person in possession of the land shall be deemed to be the holder for the purpose of the Act entitled to assignment. Therefore, the possession under Ext. A2 itself is sufficient for the defendant for treating him as land holder and he alone is entitled to assignment. Therefore, the possession under Ext. A2 itself is sufficient for the defendant for treating him as land holder and he alone is entitled to assignment. When all encumbrances are statutorily wiped off, the plaintiffs cannot redeem the defendant and deprive him of his rights. In any view of the matter, the plaintiffs are not entitled to redeem. They have no subsisting right over the property. 10. That may be why they thought of creating a document like the original of Ext. A2 as a test case in order to see whether they could come by the property. Both the courts below did not consider these aspects and were misled to think that Ext. A2 is genuine and there is the right of redemption. The trial court also lost sight of O.34 R.7 and 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which require a preliminary decree for accounting and a final decree. Value of improvements and mesne profits are matters to be decided on the trial side itself and not to be relegated to execution, which is concerned only with executing the decree. Mesne profits was allowed from the date of notice of deposit of the mortgage amount and its quantum alone was relegated to execution ignoring the further facts that mesne profits could be awarded only against a person in wrongful possession. Till the entire redemption price, including the value of improvements, is ascertained and paid, the possession of the mortgagee will not be wrongful and the mortgage will not stand extinguished. Liability for mesne profits could only be thereafter. Even though these defects were noticed by the Appellate Judge, the composite decree was allowed to stand and the directions to ascertain mesne profits and value of improvements in execution were maintained. Second appeal is allowed and the judgments and decrees of both the courts below are set aside. The suit is dismissed with costs throughout.