JUDGMENT : STANLEY, C.J.:— Mr. Chaudri has advanced a very plausible argument in support of the decree of the lower appellate Court, but we are unable to accede to it. We think that the lower appellate Court was wrong in thinking that the agreement contained in the mortgage which we have to consider, is a clog upon the equity of redemption. The parties contemplated two states of circumstances when the contract of mortgage was entered into. The first, the possibility that the mortgagees would obtain possession and enjoy the profits of the entire of the mortgaged property, in which event it was provided that the profits should be regarded as equal to the interest on the mortgage-debt and should be accepted as such. The other possibility which they contemplated was that the mortgagors should be allowed to retain possession of part of the mortgaged property and provision was made for that event by the agreement that if the mortgagors were allowed to cultivate any portion of the mortgaged property, the rent payable by them in respect of that portion should be regarded as the profits which the mortgagees under ordinary circumstances would have enjoyed, or in other words should be regarded as part of the interest. Now it appears to us perfectly clear that such an arrangement if contained in the mortgage-deed itself, does not form a clog upon the equity of redemption. The facta of the case upon which the lower appellate Court has relied were quite different from those of the present case. In that case, after the execution of a usufructuary mortgage, the mortgagor executed a separate bond which contained, in addition to the usual stipulations for the payment of the money secured thereby, a covenant to the effect that the mortgaged property should not be redeemed until the principal money and interest due under the bond had been paid. That was a case in which what formed the clog upon the equity of redemption was a contract or agreement outside the mortgage contract itself. That was a case in which what formed the clog upon the equity of redemption was a contract or agreement outside the mortgage contract itself. In the present case the covenant for the payment of the arrears of rent and the provision that such arrears should be secured by the deed formed part of the contract of the parties, and in fact amounted merely to a security for the payment of interest and therefore are not obnoxious to the well-known rule of law that no agreement will be valid which forms a clog or hindrance to the right of the mortgagor to redeem. This being our view the appeal must be allowed, but we cannot now finally deter mine this appeal in as much as one important issue of fact which was determined by the Court of first instance has not been decided by the lower appellate Court. The Court of first instance held that no arrears of rent were due to the mort gagees. The lower appellate Court has not come to any finding upon this issue. We, therefore, under the provisions of section 566 of the Code of Civil Procedure, refer the following issue to the lower appellate Court, namely:— Are any arrears of rent, and if so, what arrears due by the mortgagors to the mortgagee on account of sir and khudkasht lands held by them? 2. On return of the finding the parties will have the usual ten days for filing objections. The costs of this appeal will abide the event, including fees on the higher scale.