S NATHAMUNI PILLAI Vs. VENGAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In my opinion, the view taken by the Muusif and upheld by the District Judge that the right of redemption can only be exercised on payment of the whole of the mortgage amount is correct. The mortgage-bond, Exhibit A, is perfectly easy to understand. A sum of Rs. 3,000 was borrowed. The property was obviously not of sufficient value to discharge the interest which the mortgagee required from the usufruct and so the usufruct was to be applied to the payment of only half the interest. With respect to the interest on the balance of Rs. 1,500, the mortgage is treated as a hypothecation bond and the interest is calculated at one per cent, a month. Then the final provision is that both sums are to be paid in one lump on the same day, 10 years afterwards, and the bond is entitled "usufructuary hypothecation bond."

(2.) Mr. Ramachandra Aiyar has sought to make two mortgages out of this transaction and suggests that the fact that these two mortgages are contained in one document does not make any difference. In my opinion it is, as it purports to be, one mortgage with provisions in it which are rendered necessary by the fact that the whole of the interest chargeable cannot be discharged by the usufruct.

(3.) Now the plaintiff seeks to redeem the property. Admittedly he cannot redeem without paying the whole amount that is due; and it is not disputed that, apart from any question of limitation, the whole amount which he claims is due: but it is said that he cannot be compelled to pay Rs. 1,500 because if the defendant had brought a suit to recover that amount of Rs. 1,500 in respect of what may be called the hypothecation clause of the document, the suit would be barred.