Chandu v. Koaja Poojari

1. In the present case the mortgage provides for the re-payment of part of the mortgage-debt at the end of March 1910 and for the re payment of the rest “within the end of March 1952” which, we think, must mean on or before the 31st March 1952. There has been some difference of opinion as to whether under a provision of this kind a mortgagor is entitled to redeem before the end of the period.

2. It was held in Vadju v. Vadju(1) and in Husaini Khanam v. Husain Khan(2) that he was not. On the ??? it was held that he was, in Re Ammal v. Rajarathnam Ammal(3) and Chinnasami Reddiar v. Krishna Reddy(4) and in Puma Chandra Sarma v. Peari Mohan Pal(5). The recent decision of the Privy Council in Bakhtawar Begam v. Husaini Khanam(6), on appeal from Husaini Klianam v. Husain Khan, lays down that ordinarily and in the absence of a special stipulation the mortgagor is not entitled to redeem before the close of the period for which the mortgage was executed. Their Lordships observed that the language used in that case, “in nine years,” was certainly ambiguous, and that much might be said in favour of the conclusion of the Allahabad High Court. It was however, unnecessary to decide the point. Notwithstanding these observations, we think, we are at liberty to hold, folio wing Rose Ammal v. Rajarathnam Ammal and Chinnasami Reddiar v. Krishna Reddy, that a provision providing for payment by the mortgagor on or before a certain date is a sufficient indication of an intention to allow him to redeem before that date, especially where, as here a stipulation is made applicable only to the balance of the mortgage-debt. In Bir Mahomed Rowther v. Nagoor Rowther(7), there appears to have been a fixed period for payment. We must accordingly reverse the decree and remand the case for disposal according to law. The costs will abide the result. The memorandum of objections is dismissed.

S.N/R.K

3. Decree reversed;

4. Case remanded.