The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Act X of 1956 - Compensation for Tenants Improvements Act, which provided for the computation of compensation for improvements. The court's decision was influenced by the provisions of this Act in determining the recovery of possession and the value of improvements.

1. These appeals arise from O. S. No. 68 of 1121 of the District Court of Trivandrum which was a suit for redemption of mortgages. The properties described in the plaint schedule are Kypallivilagom comprising three plots and Alummoodu Purayidom. These originally belonged to two families Kypilli and Attoor houses on Service Inam Tenure. The mortgages and purakkadoms sought to be redeemed are Exhibits A, B, C, D, E and F. According to the plaintiff one Mary Beemer took Kypallivilagom on mortgage from the owners in 1043 under Ext. A. This was followed by another mortgage Ext. B of the year 1053 in favour of Mary Beemer's husband Joris Beemer for Alummoodu Purayidom. Mary Beemer in whom the mortgage rights ultimately vested bequeathed the same to her original Tarwad known as Varuvilagom under a Will which though contested has been upheld by the Court. Defendants 1 to 40 are members of Varuvilagom Tarwad consisting of 4 branches, all of which are represented in the suit. Defendants 41 to 44 are the children of one Mathevan Kumaran, deceased younger brother of the 1st defendant and defendants 45 to 47 are the children of the 1st defendant. The 48th and 49th defendants were impleaded as persons in possession of certain plots or building in the properties. The 50th defendant was stated to have a hypothecation right over the property. Defendants 51 to 54 are members of Kypalli family who sold the equity of redemption to the plaintiff. On the strength of such purchase the plaintiff instituted this suit. According to the plaintiff defendants had committed waste in the property and a sum of 1,500 fanams was claimed by him as damages. The plaintiff also claimed arrears of Michakaram at the rate of 20 fanams per annum from the date of Ext. B which provided for payment of the same. The plaintiff's case was that the defendants were liable to remove the building erected by them on the property. He also offered to pay a sum of 2,000 fanams as compensation for the buildings in case defendants were unwilling to remove the same. The plaintiff stated that he was willing to pay compensation for trees, if any, planted by the mortgagees. A sum of Rs. 1,000 per annum was claimed as mesne profits. The plaintiff prayed for a decree for recovery of possession of the properties on payment of the mortgage money and value of improvements, if any, deducting therefrom damage on account of waste and arrears of michakarom. Defendants 8, 9,16 to 21, 23, 24, 33, 41, 42, 48, 49, 56 and the guardian of minor defendants filed written statement disputing the plaint claim. The main contentions were that defendants 51 to 54 were not competent to sell the equity of redemption to the plaintiff, that Michakarom was not in arrears, that the suit was barred by limitation, that the allegation of waste was not true, that the defendants were entitled to the value of improvements, that the claim for mesne profits should not be allowed and that the rate at which the same was claimed was excessive. Defendants 16 to 21 further contended that Ext. A comprised only the middle plot of Kypallivilagom and not the plots lying north and south of it. According to them Survey. Nos. 169 and 171 alone were included in Exts. A and B and the plaintiff was not entitled to redeem the rest of the property, i. e. S. Nos. 168 & 170 The 24th defendant raised a contention that the northern plot of . Kypallivilagom comprised in S. No. 169 was not included in Ext. A and that it belonged to a different family from whom her ancestress Valli Chinna had obtained it on mortgage. It was therefore contended that possession of the northern plot was not under the plaint mortgages. The 49th defendant who claimed 10 cents and the building in the northern plot denied the plaintiff's claim for redemption of the said plot. She is the widow of one Thanuvan Kumarukutty, the last surviving member of Attoor family. She and her husband were residing together in the said plot and after her husband's death she m