(1) THE question for consideration in this appeal is whether the document Exhibit A-1 evidences a transaction protected by Section 10(v) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1964 (the Act). The High court answered the question in the affirmative and in favour of the respondent. This appeal by way of special leave is against the judgment of the High court. (2) THE appellant mortgaged the land in dispute for a sum of Rs. 200.00 in the year 1945 and executed the document Exhibit A-1, It is not disputed that the possession of the land in dispute was delivered to the respondent. The appellant filed an application under Section 11(2 of the Kerala Agriculturists Debt Relief Act, 1958 for the release of the land on payment of half of the mortgage money before the Munsif. The application was, however, dismissed. Against the order of the Munsif the appellant filed an appeal before the Subordinate Judge, Kasaragod who reversed the finding of the competent authority and came to the conclusion that the transaction was a usufructuary mortgage and as such the respondent did not acquire any right under the Act. The High court, however, reversed the appellate authority and agreed with the Munsif and non-suited the appellant. (3) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties. The High court has referred to the various paras of the document Exhibit A-1 in its judgment. On careful examination of the document we are of the view that the High court was not justified in reaching the conclusion that the document was not a usufructuary .mortgage. The respondent has been appropriating the profits accruing from the land throughout the period. Further under the document, the transferor undertook to pay the entire value of the improvements when the property was to be delivered back. There is no doubt in our mind from reading various provisions of the document Exhibit A-1 that what was permitted to be enjoyed by the respondent was the usufruct of the land and nothing else. We are of the view that the High court fell into patent error in holding that the document was not a usufructuary mortgage. Having held so the natural consequence would be that the provisions of the Act would not be applicable to the transaction. We, therefore set aside the judgment of the High court and restore that of the Additional Sub-Judge, the appellate authority. Having held so the natural consequence would be that the provisions of the Act would not be applicable to the transaction. We, therefore set aside the judgment of the High court and restore that of the Additional Sub-Judge, the appellate authority. (4) THE appellate authority had directed the appellant to pay Rs. 5,841.00 as the value of the improvements made on the land by the respondent. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case we direct that the possession of the land be delivered to the appellant by the respondent on payment of Rs. 10,000.00 in all for the improvements made by him till today. We allow the appeal, set aside the judgment of the High court and allow the application of the appellant under Section 11 (2 of the Kerala Agriculturists Debt Relief Act, 1958. No costs.