P. Ankinedu and Another vs P. Subbiah and Others

As regards Exhibit; II, it is not contended that under that instrument the plaintiff is not entitled to pay off the mortgage debt at any time. He has in

fact paid it and we understand that the mortgagee has received it, but the Advocate-General has contended that, notwithstanding this, the

mortgagee is entitled to remain in possession until the expiry of the twelve years the period of the mortgage as provided id the deed. The question

of whether the provisions of the deed ace unenforceable on the ground that they letter the right to redeem, of course only arises if the parties

intended when they executed the deed that the mortgagee should be allowed to remain in possession in the event which has in fact happened in this

ease, viz., discharge of the debt by the mortgagor. On the construction of Exhibit II we do not think the parties so intended. The Advocate-

General relies on the provision in the deed that as soon as the debt is discharged the mortgagee shall pay rent to the mortgagor. The contingency

contemplated in the deed was the satisfaction of the mortgage amount out of the property before the expiry of the twelve years. In this event, the

mortgagee was to be entitled to remain in possession until the expiry of the twelve years on payment of the rent provided in the deed.

The deed contains no express provision under which the mortgagee can claim to remain in possession if the mortgagor himself discharges the

debt. In our opinion, so far as Exhibit II is concerned, on payment of the mortgage debt by the mortgagor, fine mortgagor is entitled to redeem.

Even if on the true construction of the instrument the parties intended that the mortgagee should remain in possession after the payment of the

mortgage debt, we think such an agreement would be unenforceable as fettering the right to redeem.

As regards Exhibits III and IV which were executed on the same day and which must undoubtedly, in our opinion, be read together, the case

stands on a different footing, Under these instruments the mortgagee claims the right So be in possession us from 1915. The question of his right to

possession under these instruments has therefore not yet arisen and will not arise until 1915. In any view it seems to us that so far as these

documents are concerned, he has no right to possession now, When Exhibit III was executed the mortgagor could not pub the mortgagee into

possession since on that date the mortgagee under Exhibit II was already in possession, This is probably the reason why it was thought necessary

to execute two documents The fact that there were two documents does not of course in itself show there were two independent transactions. The

lease (Exhibit IV) is a Joase for twenty years as from 1915. It recites the mortgage and expressly provides for the payment of the mortgage debt

by the mortgagor. It con- templates the mortgagee remaining in possession not withstanding this payment and provides that after deducting

expenses the balance shall be paid to the mortgagor as rent, We do not think the lease can be regarded as an independent transaction. It is part

and'' parcel of the mortgage transaction and its effect is to keep the mortgagor out of possession of the mortgaged property notwithstanding the

discharge by him of the mortgage debt. Leases between a mortgagor and a mortgagee to last during the pendency of a mortgage, are not bad in

themselves [Mahomed v. Ezekiel (1905) 7 Bom. L.R. 772. But; in the case before us the documents expressly contemplated the continuance of

the lease after the discharge of the mortgage debt. We think this is a fatter on the equity of redemption which the Court ought not to enforce. Sea

Ramasami Paitar v. Chinnan Asari ILR (1901) Mad. 449, Morgan v. Jeffreys (1910) 1 Ch. 620. The appeal is dismissed with costs.