Judgment : The appellant in A.S.No.265 of 1983 on the file of Sub Court, Kuzhithurai has filed this second appeal questioning the judgment and decree passed by the said court. .2. The appellant herein as plaintiff has filed a suit in O.S.No.683 of 1978 for redemption of the mortgage. The suit was decreed. As per the preliminary decree, for passing a final decree. I.A.No.770 of 1982 was filed before the trial court and the trial court after appointment of a commissioner and on perusal of Commissioners report, which was marked as Ex.C-1, passed a final decree for payment of Rs.2,794.65 by the appellant herein. Aggrieved by the said final decree passed by the trial court, the appellant has filed an appeal in A.S.No.265 of 1983 on the file of Sub Court, Kuzhithurai. Learned Subordinate Judge, Kuzhithurai, after hearing both sides passed, a decree for Rs.1,794.65 and for delivery of the property, two months’ time was granted to the respondents. Aggrieved by the said order passed by the appellant court, the plaintiff/appellant has filed this second appeal. 3. The substantial question of law which has been framed in the second appeal is, “Whether the estimate of the value of improvements on 20 years the yield is in accordance with the decision of this Court and the Supreme Courte 4. The appellant/plaintiff has mortgaged the property to the respondents and as it was a usufructuary mortgage, the possession of the land was delivered to the respondents on the date of mortgage and the respondents have been in possession and enjoyment of the property. Thereafter, the appellant filed a suit for redemption of the said mortgage and the suit was decree and a a preliminary decree was passed. As per the preliminary decree, when he filed an application for final decree, a Commissioner was appointed. The Commissioner valued the trees on the land and also valued the improvements made by the mortgagees in the said property and filed a report. The trial court, after considering the said report, has come to the conclusion that the appellant herein has to pay Rs.2,7965. However, as already stated, the appellate court has reduced it by Rs.1,000 and decreed for Rs.1,7965. .5. The trial court, after considering the said report, has come to the conclusion that the appellant herein has to pay Rs.2,7965. However, as already stated, the appellate court has reduced it by Rs.1,000 and decreed for Rs.1,7965. .5. Sec.63-A(2) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 says: .“Where any such improvement was effected at the cost of the mortgagee and was necessary to preserve the property from destruction or deterioration or was necessary to prevent the security from becoming insufficient, or was made in compliance with the lawful order of any public servant or public authority, the mortgagor of shall, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, be liable to pay the proper cost thereof as an addition to the principal money with interest at the rate of nine per cent, per annum and the profits, if any, accruing by reason of the improvement shall be credited to the mortgagor.” 6. If the mortgagee effects any improvement in the property, such improvement has to be done according to the reasons stated in the section. In Md.Mohideen Rowther v. Mohd.Mohideen Rowther Md.Mohideen Rowther v. Mohd.Mohideen Rowther Md.Mohideen Rowther v. Mohd.Mohideen Rowther (1959)2 MLJ. 339 :A.I.R. 1960 Mad. 24 it was held: “In regard to improvements Sec.63-A lays down that in order that a mortgagee may be entitled to the costs of an improvement made by him on the mortgaged property it must be show that, (1) it was necessary to preserve the property from destruction or deterioration, or (2) it was necessary to prevent the security from becoming insufficient, or (3) it was made in compliance with the lawful order of any public servant of public authority. The object of the restriction is to prevent the mortgagee from improving the property in such a way as to make it utterly impossible for the mortgagor with his means even to redeem it; in other words, from improving the mortgagor out of his estate.” 7. From this decision, it is clear that the mortgagee is entitled to the cost of the improvement made when the property was in his possession during the existence of the mortgage. From this decision, it is clear that the mortgagee is entitled to the cost of the improvement made when the property was in his possession during the existence of the mortgage. In the present case, it is not contended by the respondents before the courts below that he has made much improvements in the land to preserve the property from destruction or deterioration or to prevent the security from becoming insufficient or in compliance with the lawful order of the public servant or public authority. There is no clause in the agreement that in case, the mortgagee has made any improvement in the property during the existence of mortgage, the mortgage of should pay the cost of such improvements. Whatever the improvement made by the mortgagee is according to his own wish and not to preserve the property from any deterioration. 8. The respondents are absent in this Court. A perusal of the records would go to show that they have nor raised any such plea before the trial court and the first appellate court also. 9. In Sundaram Aiyar v. Valia Mannadiar (1946)2 MLJ. 392:A.I.R. 1947 Mad. 197 a Division Bench of this Court have held: “Where a mortgagee seeks to make the mortgagor liable for a large amount as cost of improvements, it is the duty of the mortgagee to establish by indubitable evidence the fact of the execution of such improvements and the actual expenses incurred by him for effect them.” 10. The respondents/mortgagees have not let in any such evidence to prove the actual expenses incurred by him towards the improvements of the property. The Commissioner visited the suit property and had seen number of trees and the income from those trees was also calculated for 30 years. Such mathematical calculation done by the Commissioner is not in accordance with the section, especially when the mortgagees had not pleaded that in order to preserve of safeguard the property, they have effected such improvements. 11. In Gyane Chand v. Ram Prasad A.I.R. 1960 Pat. 503 it was held that the combined effect of Sub-secs.(1) and (2) of Sec.63-A is that on no account, the mortgagee will be entitled to retain the improvement. 11. In Gyane Chand v. Ram Prasad A.I.R. 1960 Pat. 503 it was held that the combined effect of Sub-secs.(1) and (2) of Sec.63-A is that on no account, the mortgagee will be entitled to retain the improvement. Where therefore the improvements made by the mortgagee are not covered by Sub-sec.(2), the mortgagor is entitled to the improvement without payment of the cost thereof of the mortgagee, and the mortgagee or his assignee is debarred even from removing the materials of the improvements made by them on the property. From this decision, it is clear that if the improvements made by the mortgagees are not covered under Sub-sec.(2) of Sec.63-A of the Transfer of Property Act, the mortgagee is not entitled to claim the costs of such improvements. Exactly what has been happened in the instant case. Therefore, the methods adopted by the courts below are not in accordance with Sec.63-A of the Transfer of Property Act and therefore, the appellants herein cannot be made liable to make payment of any such costs fixed by the first appellate court. 12. In the result, the second appeal is allowed and the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate court in A.S.No.265 of 1983 are set aside. In the circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their respective costs.