R. Bhaskaran, J.

When this second appeal came up for admission, I heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned counsel appearing for the 1 st respondent, who took notice in the appeal. This second appeal is filed by the 1st defendant in a suit for redemption of mortgage. The case of the plaintiff is that he executed a mortgage in respect of the plaint schedule property for Rs.3,000/- in favour of one Thankappan Aasari in 1965. The defendants took assignment of the mortgage right in 1969. Thereafter, the plaintiff executed a purakkadam for Rs.500/- from the defendants and

extended the period for mortgage for one year. Subsequently, another loan of Rs.3,000/-was also taken by the plaintiff from the 1st defendant by executing purakkadam deed No. 1907 of 1972 and when the plaintiff requested for redemption of mortgage, the defendants did not comply with the request and therefore the suit was filed.

2. The 1st defendant in the written statement contended that the plaintiff had agreed to sell the property to the defendant for a value of Rs.5,000/- per cent for the land and Rs. 10,0007- for the building. The defendant had effected improvements to the building by spending Rs. 15,000/-. It is also contended that necessary steps will be taken for getting specific performance of the contract of sale. The defendant is also entitled to kudikidappu right in the plaint schedule property.

3. The trial court referred the question of kudikidappu to the Land Tribunal. The Land Tribunal entered a finding that the 1 st defendant is not entitled to kudikidappu right since no evidence was adduced in that respect by the 1st defendant. The trial court accepted the finding of the Land Tribunal. Thereafter, the trial court also considered the question whether the defendant had effected any improvement. The trial court found that the defendants are not entitled for claiming value of improvements as the improvements effected to a building will not come under the provisions of the Compensation for Tenants Improvements Act (Kerala). Therefore, the trial court decreed the suit directing the plaintiff to deposit the mortgage money of Rs.6,500/- within three months and apply for passing a final decree.

4. When the matter reached the appellate court, the appellate court observed that at the time of argument the learned counsel for the appellant limited his argument with respect to value of improvements only, though in the appeal memorandum there is challenge to the finding of the Land Tribunal with regard to kudikidappu right. The appellate court found that the defendants have effected improvements as assessed by the Commissioner and they are entitled to get an amount of Rs. 15,690/-.

5. In this second appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant strenuously argued that the appellate court should have considered the claim of kudikidappu also. It is also contended that the appellate court has not granted interest on the value of improvements and therefore the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court have to be set aside. The learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submitted that when the counsel for the appellant had limited his arguments in the lower appellate court on the question of value of improvements only and the same is recorded by the appellate court, the appellant cannot be heard on any other point raised in the Memorandum of Appeal. He relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mill (P) Ltd. ((2003) 2 SCC 111) and also the decision of the Supreme Court in Daman Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 1985 SC 973). In both the decisions, it is " stated that the remedy of the appellant in such cases will only be to file proper application before the court before which the concession was made and the correctness of the matter recorded by the court cannot be considered in appeal. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent that the appellant had confine