Thomas. P. Joseph, J. - (1.)DEFENDANTS in O.S. No. 360 of 2006 of the court of learned Munsiff, Thodupuzha challenge the judgment and decree for redemption of mortgage granted by that court and confirmed by the IInd Additional District Court, Thodupuzha in A.S. No. 56 of 2009. It is not in dispute that one Parameswara Panickar executed usufructuary mortgage in favour of the first appellant (Ext. A1, dated 12, Makaram 1118) for a period of 48 years with a provision that interest is to be adjusted in the rent payable. First appellant was permitted to construct building and other structures for it's purposes. The mortgagor died in the year, 1993. The period of mortgage expired. Thereon, notice was issued by the legal heirs of Parameswara Panickar, the mortgagor on 25 -10 -2006 asking the first appellant to execute release deed. The legal heirs of the mortgagor executed Ext. A2, release deed in favour of respondent/ plaintiff, on the strength of which she filed the suit for redemption of mortgage acknowledging the right of first appellant to get value of improvements.
(2.)SECOND appellant/second defendant contended that first appellant/first defendant is a pattakudiyan as it constructed buildings in the suit property about 20 years before 1969 and since then the Secretary of first appellant was residing in the building. Trial court rejected that contention and granted decree in favour of respondent. First appellate court confirmed that decree.
Learned counsel for appellants contends that in the light of the decision in Muhammadunni vs. Mundikutty (1977 KLT 901), first appellant, the S.N.D.P Sakha Yogam can be treated as a "person" as defined in Section 2(42) of Kerala Land Reforms Act (for short "the Act" herein). It is also contended by the learned counsel that since evidence revealed that first appellant constructed building for its purpose as permitted by Ext. A1, mortgage deed and it's Secretary was residing in the said building, first appellant is entitled to the protection of Section 4A(1)(b) of the Act.

(3.)SO far as the said contention is concerned, it is necessary to refer to Section 4(A)(1)(b) of the Act. The said provision says that where the mortgagee or lessee has constructed a building for his own "residence" in the land comprised in the mortgage and he was occupying such building for such purpose for a continuous period of not less than twenty years immediately preceding commencement of the Amendment Act, 1969, he is entitled to the protection under Section 4 A(1).