Mathew Muricken, J.

The appellant is 6th defendant in O.S. 266 of 1098 of Vaikom Munsiff's Court. The decree is for redemption of a mortgage on payment of mortgage money and value of improvements. The final decree is dated 10.11.1104. In execution the appellant contended among other things that the paddy due under the decree is not properly valued, that plaintiff's claim for michavarom from the date of decree till the date of the recovery of property is not sustainable and that in any case interest cannot be allowed on michavarom. The lower court repelled the contentions and hence this appeal.

The learned counsel for the appellant pressed before us all the three contentions. The contention in regard to the commutation rate of paddy may be disposed of first. The lower court finds that the paddy has to be valued at the rate prevailing on the date of the first execution application. The counsel for the appellant contends that paddy has to be valued at the rate prevailing on the date of actual deposit. We do not find our way to accept either view. In Mathunni v. Kocheappan, reported in 1948 T.L.R. 110 the court lays down the following rules in regard to the commutation-rate of