Judgment :- S. Sankarasubban, J. Both these revision petitions are filed against the common order in E. A. 1114/95 and E.A. 1117/95 in E.P. 95/82 in O.S.339/69 on the file of the II Additional Munsiff s Court, Neyyattinkara. E.A. 1117/95 is filed by defendants 13,15 and 16, while E.A. 1114/95 is filed by the 10th defendant. The 10th defendant, Radhamma vijayamma, is a legal representative of the third defendant. The first petitioner in E.A. 1117/95 is also a legal representative of the 3rd defendant, while the other two petitioners in the above E.A. are the legal representatives of the 2nd defendant. O.S.339/69 was filed for redemption of mortgage. Eventhough notice were served on the defendants, they remained ex-parte. So, a preliminary decree was passed for redemption. In the suit, the plaintiffs agreed that the defendants have made improvements to the value of Rs. 1000/-. Hence a preliminary decree for redemption was passed directing the plaintiff to deposit the mortgage money and value of improvements. Subsequently, the plaintiffs filed an application for final decree. In the application for final decree also notices were sent to the defendants. But, there also the defendants remained ex parte. During the pendency of the final decree, the mortgage money and value of improvements were deposited. Thereafter a final decree for recovery of possession was passed. During the pendency of the suit, in the preliminary decree stage as well as final decree stage, some of the defendants died and their legal representatives were impleaded. Thereafter the plaintiffs filed E.P. 95/82. Many contentions were taken by the judgment debtors in order to stall the recovery of possession. Even independent rights were agitated during execution. The present applications, E.A. 1114/95 and E.A. 1117/95, were filed for ascertaining the value of improvements. In E. A. 1114/95, the prayer was to assess the value of improvements from 1088 M.E. till the passing of the final decree and to assess the increase in the value after the decree. Similarly, in E. A. 1117/95 the prayer was to assess the value of improvements in the property in possession of the petitioners taking into account the change in the value after the decree. Both these applications were dismissed by the executing Court. So far as E.A. 1114/95 is concerned, the executing Court held that the petitioner therein had earlier filed E.A. 300/ 94 for the same relief and it was dismissed. Both these applications were dismissed by the executing Court. So far as E.A. 1114/95 is concerned, the executing Court held that the petitioner therein had earlier filed E.A. 300/ 94 for the same relief and it was dismissed. Hence, the present petition was barred by the principles of res judicata. Regarding E.A. 1117/95, the Court held that the petitioners are not entitled to any remedy, since the value of improvements was not fixed under S.5 of the Kerala Compensation for Tenant's Improvements Act, hereinafter referred to as "the Act. Admittedly, in the case the mortgage money and value of improvements were deposited during the course of the final decree proceedings. Once the mortgage money was deposited, the relationship of mortgagor and mortgagee ceased and thereafter the possession of the mortgagee is unlawful. Hence, the mortgagee is not entitled to the value for improvements effected subsequent to the deposit of mortgage money (See Govindan v. Bhaskaran, 1992 (1) KLT 577, of the Supreme Court of India). 2. It is also worth mentoring, no claim was raised by the judgment debtors-defendants either during the pendency of the preliminary decree or during the pendency of the final decree. The question is whether the petitioners are entitled to a reassessment of the value of the improvements on the basis of S.5(3) of the Act. For this purpose, I may refer to S.5 of the Act: "5. Decree in eviction to be conditional on payment of compensation:- (1) In a suit for eviction instituted against a tenant in which the plaintiff succeeds and the defendant establishes a claim for compensation due under S.4 for improvements, the court shall ascertain as provided in Ss.7 to 16, the amount of the compensation and shall pass a decree declaring the amount so found due and ordering that on payment by the plaintiff into the court of the amount so found due and also the mortgage money or the premium, as the case may be, the defendant shall put the plaintiff into possession of the land with the improvements thereon. (2) If in such suit the court finds any sum of money due by the defendant to the plaintiff for rent, or otherwise in respect of the tenancy, the court shall set off such sum against the sum found due under sub-s.(1), and shall pass a decree declaring as the amount payable to him on eviction the amount, if any, remaining due to the defendant after such set-off: Provided that the court shall not set off any sum of money due for rent as aforesaid, if such sum is not legally recoverable. (3) the amount of compensation for improvements made subsequent to the date upto which compensation for improvements has been adjudged in the decree and the revaluation of an improvement, for which compensation has been so adjudged, when and in so far as such revaluation may be necessary with reference to the condition of such improvement at the time of eviction as well as any sum of money accruing due to the plaintiff subsequent to the said date for rent, or otherwise in respect of the tenancy, shall be determined by order of the court executing the decree and the decree shall be varied in accordance with such order. (4) Every matter arising under sub-s.(3) shall be deemed to be a question relating to the execution of a decree with in the meaning of sub-s.(1) of S.47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908." Under S.5(1) of the Act, in a suit for eviction if the defendant establishes a claim for compensation under S.4 for improvements, the Court shall ascertain the same under 4 Ss.7 to 16 and pass a decree declaring the amount so found and ordering that the defendant shall put in possession of the plaintiff on the deposit of the amounts so found and the mortgage money. Under S.5(3), the tenant as defined in the above Act is entitled to compensation for improvement made subsequent to the date upto which the compensation was adjudged in the decree and is also entitled for re-valuation of the improvements with reference to the conditions of such improvements at the time of eviction. The question is whether the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of S.5(3). As I already stated, the petitioners did not make any claim for value of improvements either at the preliminary decree stage or at the final decree stage. The question is whether the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of S.5(3). As I already stated, the petitioners did not make any claim for value of improvements either at the preliminary decree stage or at the final decree stage. At both stages, the petitioners did not appear and the decree was passed ex parte. The preliminary decree ordered the plaintiff to deposit Rs. 1000/- as valuation on the basis of the admission made by the plaintiff. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that since the preliminary decree stated that the defendants are entitled to a value of Rs. 1000/- towards improvements, they are entitled at least for a re-assessment of the value till they are evicted. Hence, the present petition to that extent was maintainable. This question is not res Integra. A Full Bench has considered this question in the decision reported in Paily v. Augusthy, 1967 KLT 189. Raman Nayar, J. (as he then was) speaking for the Bench held as follows: " If a decree for eviction awards no compensation for improvements, no improvements having been effected or compensation having already been paid, it is not a decree under sub-s.(1) of s.5, and sub-s.(3) of that section cannot apply to enable a variation so as to award compensation for improvements subsequently effected. In other words a person to whom no compensation is due at the time his contractual tenancy determines is not authorised to remain in possession by sub-s.(1) of S.4 It was further held, relying upon the earlier decisions, that only if the defendant establishes a right for improvement and that is assessed under S.5(1) that he can resort to S.5(3). The Full Bench relied on the decision in Narayanan Nair v. Kamalakshi Amma, 1963 KLT 1091. In that case also, Raman Nair, J. sitting single, held as follows: "Now the very first condition is that compensation must have been adjudged in the decree; or else there would be no data in relation to which any improvement can be said to be subsequent so as to entitle him to a revaluation on account of any change in condition". According to me, a mere offer by the plaintiff to deposit the improvements does not amount to an adjudication of the value of improvements under S.5(1). According to me, a mere offer by the plaintiff to deposit the improvements does not amount to an adjudication of the value of improvements under S.5(1). If an adjudication is made under S.5(1), the relevant data will be before the court to show the improvements effected by the mortgagee at a point of time. For the purpose of revaluation, it is highly necessary to know as to when the improvements were effected. Then only re-valuation is possible. Hence, in this case, re-valuation is not possible, since there is no data to show the nature of the improvements, their age, etc. The defendants are at fault in not responding to the summons and not raising the contentions for improvements even at the final decree proceedings. Hence I am of the view that the petitioners are not entitled to succeed. The petitioner in C.R. P. 1645/97 is also handicapped by the decision in E.A. 300/94, which was filed for the same relief. In the above view of the matter, I do not find any merit in the Civil Revision Petitions. They are dismissed.