JUDGMENT : This appeal is by the plaintiff challenging the final decree in a suit for redemption of mortgage. 2. An extent of approximately 2777 acres of land belonging to the plaintiff was mortgaged with the Central Bank of India in the year 1964. The State of Kerala was a guarantor to the transaction, the loan being one granted under the Agricultural Re-financing Scheme. In the year 1978, Government paid off the debt due to the Bank, thus getting itself subrogated to the shoes of the mortgagee. Thereafter, proceedings were initiated by the Government under the Revenue Recovery Act for recovery of the mortgage money. At that stage, the suit was filed seeking redemption. 3. In the suit, it was claimed that on the advent of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, (hereinafter referred to as the “KLR Act”) and the Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971, (hereinafter referred to as the “Vesting Act”) portions of the mortgaged property had become vested with the Government as excess lands and private forest. By virtue of the relevant provisions of the said statutes, there has been pro tanto extinguishment of the mortgage insofar as it related to the extent of the mortgaged property that became vested with the Government. 4. The trial court passed a preliminary decree allowing redemption of mortgage and further holding that the plaintiff is entitled for reduction of the mortgage liability in proportion to the value of the properties vested with the Government under the KLR Act and the Vesting Act. The clauses in the mortgage decree, most relevant for consideration of this appeal, are extracted hereunder:- “In the result, the suit is decreed and a preliminary decree for redemption is hereby passed subject to the following terms and conditions:- (1) That the plaintiff is entitled to redeem the mortgage property covered by Ext.B1 excluding 1232.26 acres mentioned in Ext.A17 order, and also excluding the area vested in Government and taken by them under the Kerala Private Forest (Vesting and Assignment) Act and Rules. (2) xxxxx (3) That the plaintiff is entitled for reduction of mortgage liability covered by Ext.B1, in proportion to the value of the properties taken by the Government under Ext.A17 order, and also, under the Kerala Private Forest (Vesting and Assignment) Act, as in the date or dates of the taking over of those lands. (2) xxxxx (3) That the plaintiff is entitled for reduction of mortgage liability covered by Ext.B1, in proportion to the value of the properties taken by the Government under Ext.A17 order, and also, under the Kerala Private Forest (Vesting and Assignment) Act, as in the date or dates of the taking over of those lands. (4) That the proportionate value, for which the plaintiff is entitled for reduction is left open to be decided in the final decree proceedings, as the materials before me, is not at all (26th page begins) sufficient to determine the same.” 5. The judgment of the trial court was affirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in AS 279/1986. The State took up the matter before the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.2502/1994. As per judgment dated 13.09.1999, the Apex Court, held that the plaintiff is not entitled to pro tanto reduction in the mortgage money. The judgment is reported in State of Kerala v. Koliyat Estates [ 1999 (8) SCC 419 ]. 6. In the final decree proceedings that ensued, the plaintiff again raised the claim of pro tanto reduction in the mortgage money consequent to the vesting of part of the mortgaged property with the Government. The trial court rejected the same. The plaintiff approached this Court in RFA 760/11. A Division Bench of this Court set aside the judgment of the trial court and remitted the matter for fresh disposal. Pursuant to the remand, the trial court passed the impugned judgment, rejecting the plea of pro tanto reduction and further fixing the quantum of the mortgage money payable. The said judgment is challenged in this appeal. 7. Heard Sri. M.K.S.Menon learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff and Sri.M.L.Sajeevan, learned Special Government Pleader (Revenue) on behalf of the respondent-defendants. 8. Two questions arise for consideration. (i) Is the plaintiff entitled for pro tanto reduction of the mortgage money consequent to the vesting of part of the mortgage property with the Government under the KLR Act and under the Vesting Act. (ii) Is the plea regarding pro tanto reduction available to the plaintiff in view of the judgment of the Apex court dated 13-9-1999. 9. The fact that during the subsistence of the mortgage with the Bank, portions of the mortgaged property became vested with the State under the provisions of the KLR Act and the Vesting Act, is not in dispute. 9. The fact that during the subsistence of the mortgage with the Bank, portions of the mortgaged property became vested with the State under the provisions of the KLR Act and the Vesting Act, is not in dispute. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that, by virtue of certain provisions of the said statutes, which are being specifically adverted to hereunder, there has been partial extinguishment of the mortgage insofar as it related to the land vested with the Government under the aforesaid statutes. Section 86(1) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act reads thus:- “86. Vesting of excess lands in Government :- (1) On the determination of the extent and other particulars of the lands. the ownership or possession or both of which is or are to be surrendered under Section 85, the ownership or possession or both, as the case may be of the land shall subject to the provisions of this Act, vest in the Government free from all encumbrances and the Taluk Land Board Shall issue an order accordingly.” 10. Therefore, the lands in excess of the ceiling area taken possession of/vested with the Government free from all encumbrances. 11. Under Section 88 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, the persons who are required to surrender land in terms of Section 86 (or Section 87 with which we are not presently concerned about), the owner is entitled to compensation. 12. Section 90 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act provides for preparation of compensation roll giving the details of the land, the owners and the details regarding the encumbrances. 13. Section 90(1)(d) reads thus:- “90 Preparation of compensation roll. - (1) As soon as may be after the Taluk Land Board has determined the extent and particulars of any land the ownership or possession or both of which is or are to be surrendered the Taluk Land Board shall forwarding the necessary documents, direct the Land Tribunal to prepare and submit to the Taluk Land Board a compensation roll showing- (a) xxxxx (b) xxxxx (c) xxxxx (d) the names of the holders of the encumbrances (including mortgagees who have surrendered possession of excess lands). Maintenance or alimony and the value of the encumbrances or of the claims for maintenance or alimony.” 14. Maintenance or alimony and the value of the encumbrances or of the claims for maintenance or alimony.” 14. Section 90(3) provides that when the land surrendered is part of the security for an encumbrance, the Land Tribunal shall apportion the encumbrance between the surrendered land and the portion of the land remaining as security, in proportion to the value of the two portions. Section 90(3) reads thus:- “90(3) Where any land, the ownership or possession or both of which is or are surrendered to, or assumed by the Government forms part of the security for an encumbrance, maintenance or alimony the Land Tribunal shall for the purpose of discharging the same apportion the entire encumbrance, maintenance or alimony between the land surrendered to or assumed by the Government and the portion of the security remaining in proportion to the values of the two portions of the security.” 15. In terms of Section 91(2), while paying the compensation amount, the value of the encumbrance shall be deducted and paid to the holder of the encumbrance. If the total amount of encumbrance exceeds the compensation amounts, the compensation is to be distributed to the holders of the encumbrance in the order of priority. Section 91(2) reads thus : - “91. Payment of compensation. -- (1) xxxxx (2) Where the land or the ownership or possession of land which has vested in the Government is subject to any encumbrance, maintenance or alimony, the value of the encumbrance, maintenance or alimony shall be deducted from the compensation amount payable to the person liable for such encumbrance, maintenance, or alimony. If the total amount of such encumbrance, maintenance or alimony is more than the amount of compensation, the compensation amount shall be distributed to file holders of the encumbrance and the persons entitled to the maintenance or alimony in the order of priority. 16. Section 93 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act provides that the payment of compensation in terms of Section 92 shall be a full discharge of the liability. Section 93 reads thus:- “93. Payment of compensation to be full discharge - The payment of compensation in the manner specified in Section 92 shall be a full discharge of the liability for payment of compensation, and no further claim therefore shall lie. 17. Section 93 reads thus:- “93. Payment of compensation to be full discharge - The payment of compensation in the manner specified in Section 92 shall be a full discharge of the liability for payment of compensation, and no further claim therefore shall lie. 17. Therefore, it is clear that, when part of the mortgaged property is surrendered/taken over by the Government as excess land under Section 86 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, the mortgage liability become apportioned between the land surrendered and the remaining portion of the mortgaged security. Further, the liability so apportioned and fastened on to the land so surrendered/taken over gets fully discharged or extinguished. 18. Section 3(1) of the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act reads thus:- “3. Private forests to vest in Government-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, or in any contract or other document, but subject to the provisions of sub-Section (2) and (3), with effect on and from the appointed day, the ownership and possession of all private forests in the State of Kerala shall by virtue of this Act, stand transferred to and vested in the Government free from all encumbrances, and the right, title and interest of the owner or any other person in the any private forest shall stand extinguished.” 19. The said section also provides for vesting free of all encumbrances and further provides that the interest of any person over such land shall stand extinguished. 20. In view of the above statutory provisions, it appears that consequent to the vesting of portion of the mortgaged property held by the Central Bank of India with the State, the mortgage liability got apportioned between the property vested with the Government and the remaining extent of the mortgage property, the further, the mortgage liability over the land surrendered/vested with the Government became extinguished. In the case at hand, the compensation amount paid consequent to surrender of the excess land was adjusted towards arrears of land value in exercise of the priority rights under Section 91(2) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. No compensation amount is payable under the provisions of the Kerala Private Forests (vesting and Assignment) Act. Suffice to notice that there appears to have been a pro tanto extinguishment of the mortgage that was held by the Central Bank of India. 21. No compensation amount is payable under the provisions of the Kerala Private Forests (vesting and Assignment) Act. Suffice to notice that there appears to have been a pro tanto extinguishment of the mortgage that was held by the Central Bank of India. 21. However, without taking note of the pro tanto off the entire liabilities due to the Bank without claiming pro tanto reduction. The payments were made by the Government without notice to the plaintiff. The plaintiff is entitled to pro tanto reduction of the mortgage money and is entitled to redemption of the property on payment of the liability fastened on the remaining extent of the mortgaged property after apportionment. The Honourable Apex Court in the judgment dated 13.9.1999, after referring to the effect of vesting under the KLR Act and the vesting Act held that the liability over the land so vested does not remain. In paragraph 13 of the judgment it was held thus :- “So the vesting of land in the Government was free from all encumbrances. In other words, the Government would have no liability to clear any encumbrance on the land so vested. If the land is covered by a mortgage the liability therein would not remain with that part of the land which the Government got through the vesting process.” 22. The finding as entered into by me in the preceding paragraph is in tune with the same. The first point is answered accordingly. 23. In State of Kerala V. Koliyat Estates (Supra), the Honourable Apex Court deliberating on Section 60 of the Transfer of Property Act dealing with partial redemption, finally concluded thus :- “The upshot of the above discussion is this : vesting of portion of the mortgaged property with the Government and the subsequent assignment of mortgage right in favour of the Government are not sufficient to formulate the exception provided in the last paragraph of Section 60 of the TP Act. So the plaintiff is not entitled to pro tanto reduction in the mortgage money. Hence the judgment of the trial court which was confirmed by the High Court, would stand modified to the above extent. Appeal is disposed of accordingly.” 24. It was categorically held that “the plaintiff is not entitled to pro tanto reduction in the mortgage money.” 25. So the plaintiff is not entitled to pro tanto reduction in the mortgage money. Hence the judgment of the trial court which was confirmed by the High Court, would stand modified to the above extent. Appeal is disposed of accordingly.” 24. It was categorically held that “the plaintiff is not entitled to pro tanto reduction in the mortgage money.” 25. In the order of remand dated 16.11.12 in RFA 760/11, the Division Bench of this Court after considering the submissions regarding pro tanto extinguishment of the mortgage held thus :- “The basic issue on facts, in the suit is; that following the aforenoted tripartite agreement between the Government, the plaintiff and the Central Bank of India, the Government paid off the amounts due under the loan voluntarily and without notice to the plaintiff. The encumbrance, to the extent it related to the land vested in the Government by operation of statute, did not thereafter continue to lie in relation to the vested area. If that would arise for determination in the final decree proceedings in furtherance of the appellate judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, among other things, the extent of liability which could be taken as covered by the land that went to the Government through the vesting processes and the proportionate reduction in the redemption price that may have to be paid by the plaintiff to the Government, has also to be determined. Insofar as the total liability that has been wiped out by the Government and the accruals thereon is concerned, there can be no further dispute.” 26. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the Division Bench in the order of remand held that the question of pro tanto reducation is to be considered and that even assuming that the said direction is erroneous or contrary to the judgment of the Apex Court in State of Kerala Vs. Koliyat Estates (Supra), latter it is the latter judgment which operates as res judicata between the parties. Hence, according to him, the issue is still alive the consideration. I am unable to concur with the submission. The Division Bench directed that, the question needs to be considered. “If it would arise for determination”. Koliyat Estates (Supra), latter it is the latter judgment which operates as res judicata between the parties. Hence, according to him, the issue is still alive the consideration. I am unable to concur with the submission. The Division Bench directed that, the question needs to be considered. “If it would arise for determination”. In view of the finding by the Apex Court in the preliminary decree stage in State of Kerala Versus Koliyat Estate (supra) that the plaintiff is not entitled for pro tanto reduction, the said question does not arise for further determination again in the final decree proceedings. The trial Court has rightly refused to uphold the plea. The impugned judgment is only to be upheld and I do so. Appeal fails and is dismissed. No Costs.