JUDGMENT : STANLEY, C.J.:— This appeal arises out of a suit for redemption of a usufructury mortgage of date the 8th of February, 1900, executed by Kunwar Partab Singh, in favour of the defendants, to secure the principal sum of Rs. 4,000. The mortgage contains a provision that the mortgagor shall have a right to redeem the mortgage on payment of the mortgage-debt at the end of any year. On the 15th of May, 1900, Kunwar Partab Singh executed a simple mortgage of the same property in favour of the defendants to secure a further sum of Rs. 1,500 and interest. In this mortgage is a recital of the earlier mortgage and a covenant on the part of the mortgagor that he will repay the money due under it together with the money due on the earlier mortgage, and that without payment of the money due under the earlier mortgage he will not be competent to satisfy the money due under it. The plaintiff, on the 22nd of December, 1903, purchased the equity of redemption in the mortgaged property at a sale held in execution of a decree obtained by one Raja Shiam Singh against the heir of Kunwar Partab Singh, who was then dead and obtained formal possession. He, on the 28th of June, 1904, deposited in Court under the provisions of section 83 of the Transfer of Property Act, the amount due on foot of the usufructuary mortgage of the 8th February, 1900, but the defendants refused to permit him to redeem that mortgage without payment of the amount clue on the later mortgage. In consequence of this refusal the suit was instituted. 2. The only question in the case is whether the plaintiff is entitled to redeem the usufructuary mortgage without also redeeming the later mortgage. Both the lower Courts held that the defendants-respondents were justified in their refusal to permit redemption of one of the mortgages only and that the plaintiff was not entitled to redeem the first mortgage without redeeming the second also. 3. We are of opinion that this decision is correct. The property comprised in both mortgages is the same. The second mortgage contains a covenant on the part of the mortgagor for payment of both debts simultaneously. 3. We are of opinion that this decision is correct. The property comprised in both mortgages is the same. The second mortgage contains a covenant on the part of the mortgagor for payment of both debts simultaneously. It creates in effect a further charge on the property in respect of the further advance made by the mortgagees” to the mortgagor and, no doubt, the fact that the mortgagees were in possession of the mortgaged property-was some inducement to them to make that advance. It appears to us that it would be altogether inequitable to permit the mortgagor despite his express covenant to pay both debts together, to redeem one mortgage without redeeming the other. The relief which we are asked to give is equitable, and it is only just that we should see that the party to whom equitable relief is given should do equity and fulfil the obligations which he undertook. It has been contended that the covenant contained in the later mortgage for payment of both debts simultaneously is a clog on the equity of redemption and therefore unenforceable. But it seems to us that we should be extending the rule which forbids the imposition of a clog or fetter on redemption were we to hold that the agreement under consideration in this case falls under it. We may point out that there would be little to be gained by a mortgagor in the enforcement of such partial redemption as the plaintiff-appellant seeks in this case. If he were allowed to redeem the usufructuary mortgage, it would be open to the mortgagees to institute a suit forthwith for payment of the amount due on the later mortgage and thus attain the object which they seek in this litigation. 4. For the foregoing reasons we dismiss the appeal with costs, including fees in this Court on the higher scale.