JUDGMENT : STANLEY, C.J.:— This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs-respondents for redemption of one of two mortgages. The suit was decreed in the Court of first instance and the decree of that Court was confirmed by the lower appellate Court. The mortgage which is sought to be redeemed is a usufructuary mortgage, dated the 22nd of May, 1881, and registered on the 23rd of May, 1881, in the plaint, however, described as a deed of the 12th of May, 1881, to secure a principal sum of Rs. 1,000 to be paid after the lapse of a term of 20 years. During the term the mortgagees were to hold possession of the property and set off the profits as against the interest. The mortgage was executed by one Nanhu, from whom the plaintiffs-respondents derive their title, in favour of Mukhram, the predecessor in title of the defendants-appellants. The second mortgage of the property in favour of the same parties is dated the 17th of June, 1881. It recites the earlier mortgage and also a bond, dated and registered on the 17th of May, 1881, given by the mortgagor to secure a sum of Rs. 1,000. It then recites that the mortgagor had borrowed Rs. 500 from the mortgagee, and that, in all, a sum of Rs. 1,500 in addition to the amount of the earlier mortgage was due by the executant, Nanhu, to Mukhram. In the operative part of the deed the mortgagor declares that he will pay “the said amounts, namely, Rs. 1,500, with interest, at 10 per cent, per mensem, along with the mortgage money,” and there follows a provision that “the mortgaged lands shall also be considered to have been mortgaged to secure the said amounts, and that the mortgaged lands shall not be redeemed unless the mortgagor paid the said amounts with interest.” The suit out of which this appeal has arisen is a suit for the redemption of the earlier usufructuary mortgage. The defendant set up the defence that the plaintiffs Were not entitled to redeem the earlier mortgage without also redeeming the later incumbrance. Both the lower Courts held that the provision contained in the later instrument in regard to the payment of the mortgage debts was a clog on the equity of redemption and so was void. The defendant set up the defence that the plaintiffs Were not entitled to redeem the earlier mortgage without also redeeming the later incumbrance. Both the lower Courts held that the provision contained in the later instrument in regard to the payment of the mortgage debts was a clog on the equity of redemption and so was void. Against their decision this appeal has been preferred and it has been very ably argued on behalf of the appellants. 2. Mr. Howard relied upon the provisions of section 61 of the Transfer of Property Act as supporting the case of the appellants. His contention is that there was a binding contract entered into between the parties, that the money secured by the later security should be paid along with the money due on the earlier mortgage, and that the mortgaged property should be considered to have been mortgaged to secure the entire sums due to the mortgagees and that the mortgaged lands should not be redeemed unless on payment of these amounts. Section 61, it will be seen, has reference to mortgages upon different properties and not to a case like the present where the same property is the subject of both mortgages. That section, therefore, has no application. We have carefully considered the language of the documents, and also the arguments which have been laid before us. The view, which we have formed is that in the instrument of the 17th of June, 1881, there was no such consolidation of the two mortgages as precluded the plaintiffs-respondents from redeeming independently the mortgage of the 22nd of May, 1881. It may be that if parties to mortgage transanctions determine and agree so to consolidate mortgage securities as to preclude the mortgagor from redeeming one without redeeming all, their contract in that regard would be enforced. But in this case we are unable to discover that there was any such clear and distinct contract entered into between the parties as obliged the mortgagor to redeem both mortgages at the same time. There is no doubt that the mortgagor undertook to pay the money advanced on the later security along with the money due on the earlier security, but further than that he did not go. There is no doubt that the mortgagor undertook to pay the money advanced on the later security along with the money due on the earlier security, but further than that he did not go. There is an express provision in the later deed that the mortgaged land should not be redeemed unless the mortgagor paid the amounts, which have been ear-marked in the earlier passage as being the two sums, namely, one of Rs. 1,000 secured by the bond of the 17th of May, 1881, and the other, the further advance of Rs. 500. From this we gather that the parties contemplated that the mortgagor should be at liberty to redeem the later mortgage on payment of the two sums secured by it, namely, Rs. 1,500. If he was so at liberty to redeem that mortgage at any time, there is no reason why he should be precluded from redeeming the earlier mortgage by payment of the amount secured by it. It may be that the parties intended to consolidate the two mortgages but they have not expressed their intention with sufficient clearness so as to enable the Court to say that they had done so and prevent full operation being given to the provisions of sections 60 and 62 of the Transfer of Property Act. For these reasons we think that the conclusion arrived at by the Courts below was correct. We therefore dismiss the appeal with costs, including fees in this Court on the higher scale.