Judgment :- The petitioner in E. A.No.1154 of 1991 in E.P.No. 58 of 1989 in O.S.No.153 of 1980, Munsiff Court, Thiruvananthapuram, is the petitioner. The matter arises in execution. The respondents herein are the plaintiffs-decree holders. The revision' petitioner is the defendant judgment debtor. The suit was one for redemption. A final decree for redemption was passed. In execution, the judgment debtor-revision petitioner filed an application under S.125(1) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, to refer to the Land Tribunal to adjudicate the issue of kudikidappu. The Land Tribunal held that the defendant is not entitled to get kudlkidappu right over the decree schedule property. The court below ordered delivery of the decree schedule property on 1-6-1991. The revision petitioner filed C.R.P.No.956 of 1991 before this Court, wherein he claimed that he is entitled to protection under Act 31 of 1975. Though the revision was dismissed mother grounds, this Court directed the lower court to consider the plea of the revision petitioner based on Act 31 of 1975. It is thereafter, the judgment debtor-revision petitioner filed E. A.No.1154 of 1991 praying that the execution petition be dismissed, in view of the provisions of Act 31 of 1975. The court below considered the matter in great detail and held that the provisions of the said Act will not apply to the instant case, though the revision petitioner is a member of Scheduled Tribe. E.A.No.1154 of 1991 was dismissed. The court below ordered delivery of the decree schedule property. The judgment debtor has come up in revision. 2. I heard counsel. 3. Before me, it is common ground that the revision petitioner judgment debtor is a member of Scheduled Tribe entitled to the protection of Act 31 of 1975. The sole question that was argued before me that S.4 read with S.2(g) of Act 31 of 1975 will not apply to the instant case. According to the decree holders, the very purpose of the Act is to restrict the transfer of lands by members of Scheduled Tribes in the State of Kerala and also for restoration of possession of lands alienated by such members The enactment only interdicted or restricted alienation of properties by members of Scheduled Tribes. The revision petitioner is a mortgagee, who obtained possession of the decree schedule property as security. The relationship between the judgment debtor and the decree-holders is that of mortgagor-mortgagee. The revision petitioner is a mortgagee, who obtained possession of the decree schedule property as security. The relationship between the judgment debtor and the decree-holders is that of mortgagor-mortgagee. The said jural relationship was put an end to by depositing the mortgage amount. The question is whether in a case where the mortgagee has to deliver the property as per the decree of court, S.4 read with S.2(g) of Act 31 of 1975 is applicable? 4. Act 31 of 1975 is titled as 'The Kerala Scheduled Tribes (Restriction on Transferor Lands and Restoration of Alienated Lands) Act, 1975'. The title and the preamble to the Act as also S.2(g) and S.4 are relevant to appreciate the controversy in the case, which read: "An act to provide for restricting the transfer of lands by members of Scheduled Tribes in the State of Kerala and for the restoration of possession of lands alienated by such members and for matters connected therewith. Preamble: --WHEREAS it is expedient to provide for restricting the transfer of lands by members of Scheduled Tribes in the State of Kerala and for the restoration of possession of lands alienated by such members and for matters connected therewith. Section 2(g) : Transfer' in relation to immovable property means an act by which immovable property is conveyed by any documentary or oral transaction, whether by way of mortgage with or without possession, lease, sale, gift or exchange, or in any other manner,-not being a testamentary disposition; and includes a charge, Vilapanayam', 'unduruthi', contract relating to immovable property, mortgage, pledge or hypothecation of crops or standing trees on payment of consideration or otherwise, voluntary surrender and abandonment. Section 4: Restriction on transfer: - Not with standing anything to the contrary contained in any other law, or in any contract, custom or usage or in any judgment, decree or order of any court, any transfer effected by a member of a scheduled tribe, of immovable property possessed, enjoyed or owned by him, on or after the commencement of this Act to a person other than a member of a Scheduled Tribe, without the previous consent in writing of the competent authority, shall be invalid". Having heard the counsel on both sides, I am of the view that Act 31 of 1975 has no application to the instant case. Having heard the counsel on both sides, I am of the view that Act 31 of 1975 has no application to the instant case. S.4 only restricts transfer, affected by a member of Scheduled Tribes, of immovable property possessed, enjoyed or owned by him. S.2(g) defines 'transfer', in relation to immovable property. It means, an act by which the immovable property is conveyed by any documentary or oial transaction, whether by way of mortgage, lease, sale eta 5. Prima facie, when a mortgage is extinguished and the mortgagee has to deliver back the property as per the decree passed in a redemption suit, it cannot be said that there is any 'transfer', of immovable property, by any documentary or oral 'transaction'. In such a case, S.4 read with S.2(g) of the Act is inapplicable. Counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that when the mortgagee is delivering back the property, it amounts to surrender or relinquishment and so, it amounts to a 'transfer'. I am unable to accept the said submission. The word 'transfer' occurring in S.4 of the Act and the word 'transaction' occurring in S.2(g) of the Act have significance. They are jointers to understand the scope of the section. The word 'transfer' in S.4 read with 'transaction' occurring in S.2(g) postulate a voluntary act or deal by one with another. This is clear. A transaction by a person must be a transaction with some other person. It should be a deal or or act concluded between persons by a cross or reciprocal action. That is not so in the instant case. The word 'transaction' has been the subject matter of numerable decisions. The Bench decision of this Court in P.K. Subramania Iyer v. Commissioner of Gift Tax (67 ITR 612, at pages 614 and 615) illumines the significance and legal import of the said word in law. In this perspective, I am of the view that S.4 read with S.2(g) will not apply to a case where the judgment debtor has to deliver back the property on extinguishment of the mortgage. The said act of 'surrender' or return of property by operation of the decree of the Court is neither a 'transfer' nor a 'transaction', as understood in Act 31 of 1975. The said act of 'surrender' or return of property by operation of the decree of the Court is neither a 'transfer' nor a 'transaction', as understood in Act 31 of 1975. Even if there is an act of surrender or delivery of the property, it cannot amount to a 'transfer' or conveyance by which immovable properly is conveyed by any 'transaction', documentary or oral, which is the statutory requirement herein. 6. Even if there is any doubt or ambiguity in S.4 read with S.2(g) of the Act, the long title and preamble of the Act would go to show that only 'transfer' of lands 'by' the members of Scheduled Tribes is restricted. It is implicit therein that lands should belong to such persons. He should be capable to transfer lands - convey title to it. As stated by the Supreme Court in In the Kerala Education Bill, 1957 (AIR 1958 SC 956 at 967), we should approach -the substantive provisions of the Act in the light of the policy and purpose deducible from the terms of the long title and the preamble and construe the various, clauses in the Act as subserve the said policy and purpose (see also Safari Sales v. State of Kerala -1988 (2) KLT 423 (426)). The long title and preamble to the Act unambiguously state that the Act is to provide for restricting the transfer of lands 'by' members of Scheduled Tribes in the State of Kerala and for the restoration of possession of lands alienated by such members. 7. Here, there is no transfer of land by the revision petitioner. He is only returning the lands, which already belonged to the mortgagor. To such a case, the provisions of Act 31 of 1975 will not apply. The court below was justified in holding that S.4 read with S.2(g) of the Act has no application to the instant case and the judgment debtor is not entitled to any protection under the said Act, though he is a member of the Scheduled Tribes. E.A.No.1154 of 1991 was rightly dismissed by the Court below. There is no merit in this revision. It is dismissed.