JUDGMENT : AIKMAN, J. This and the connected Second Appeal No. 265 of 1904 are cross-appeals arising out of a suit brought by Bohra Thakur Das, Musammat Nannhi Kunwar and Musammat Durga Kunwar, for the redemption of a mortgage. The court of first instance decreed the claim fixing a certain amount to be paid by the plaintiffs. Both parties appealed and the learned District Judge varied the amount, which had been fixed by the court of first instance as the amount to be paid for redemption. There are two appeals here from the decrees of the lower appellate court. This appeal is that on behalf of the defendant. 2. On the 5th of January, 1870, one William Liveaus Gardener executed a usufructuary mortgage of eleven biswas of Kachaura and 6 biswas of Agrana for a term of eleven and half years in favour of Nand Kishore, the predeeessor-in-title of the defendants-appellants as security for a loan of Rs. 5,000. The mortgage-deed provides that the rate of interest on the loan was to be twelve per cent, per annum. The mortgagee undertook to pay the Government revenue. At the same time the mortgage-deed provided that if the Government revenue were to be reduced at the ensuing revision of settlement the mortgagor was to benefit by the reduction. On the other hand if the Government revenue were enhanced the mortgagor made himself liable for payment of the amount by which the revenue should be enhanced. It has been found on an issue sent down by us to the lower court that the revenue was enhanced by the amount of Rs. 895-15-9 annually. It is not denied that the mortgagor did not fulfil his promise to pay this enhancement and that consequently the mortgagee had himself to pay the enhancement to save the mortgaged property from being proceeded against for arrears of revenue. Another stipulation in the deed was that if the mortgagee spent any money in the construction of wells, the mortgagor would recoup him the amount at the time of redemption with interest at twelve per cent, per annum. Prior to this mortgage, there was a simple mortgage of the whole of Kachaura, dated the 21st December, 1868, in favour of Nand Kishore, aforesaid, and one Dwarka Das. Prior to this mortgage, there was a simple mortgage of the whole of Kachaura, dated the 21st December, 1868, in favour of Nand Kishore, aforesaid, and one Dwarka Das. A decree was obtained on the mortgage of 1868, and under that decree the whole of the village of Kachaura was sold on the 20th of June, 1878, and purchased by Nand Kishore and the widow of Dwarka Das. The present plaintiffs have acquired the equity of redemption of 5¼ biswas of the mortgaged share in Agrana and they brought the suit out of which these appeals arise to redeem this 5¼ biswa share on payment of a proportionate amount of the mortgage money and to recover surplus profits if any. For the defence various pleas were put forward. One was that the plaintiff must redeem the whole 6 biswa share of Agrana and not only 5¼ biswas. This plea was sustained by the court of first instance which passed a decree declaring plaintiff's right to redeem 6 biswas. The decision on this plea has been submitted to by the parties. The next plea raised by the defendants was that the plaintiffs were not entitled to redeem on payment of a proportionate amount of the mortgage-money secured on the properties but must pay the whole amount of the loan with interest. This plea was sustained by the courts below and the decision on it forms the subject of plaintiff's cross-appeal. 3. The defendants further pleaded that in order to redeem, the plaintiffs must pay the enhanced amount of revenue which the defendants had to pay on account of the mortgagors together with interest. Further, that the plaintiffs must pay at the time of redemption the amounts expended by the mortgagee in the construction of wells. These pleas were repelled by the courts below, and the decision of the lower-court as to these two pleas forms the subject of this appeal. In regard to the latter plea, namely, as to the right of the appellants to recover their outlay in Kachaura on the wells, we entirely agree with the view taken by the court below. The mortgagee having himself acquired the property in Kachaura gets the benefit of the improvements he made, and it would be in the highest degree inequitable that he should not only have the benefit of the wells but also recover the money he spent in constructing them. The mortgagee having himself acquired the property in Kachaura gets the benefit of the improvements he made, and it would be in the highest degree inequitable that he should not only have the benefit of the wells but also recover the money he spent in constructing them. The stipulation in the mortgage-deed was made to provide for the mortgagor himself getting possession of the property with the improvements made on it by the mortgagee and was never framed to meet the contingency of the mortgagee himself acquiring the property. 4. The claim of the appellants to add to the mortgage money the amount they paid on behalf of the mortgagors as enhanced revenue is based on the principles embodied in section 72 of the Transfer of Property Act. That section authorises a mortgagee in possession to spend such money during the continuance of the mortgage as is necessary to preserve the property from forfeiture or sale, and authorises the mortgagee “in the absence of a contract to the contrary to add the money so spent to the principal money at the rate of interest payable on the principal or where no such rate is fixed at the rate of nine per cent, per annum.” It is true that this mortgage was entered into before the Transfer of Property Act came into force. But it has been held in Girdhari Lal v. Bhola Nath, [1888] I.L.R., 10 All., 611, at p. 614 that the rules contained in section 72 of the Transfer of Property Act “only reproduce the doctrines which the Courts of Justice in India have uniformly adopted,” and that the section reproduces the old law. The learned Advocate for the respondent to this appeal argues, however, that in the mortgage-deed under consideration there was a contract to the contrary. The learned Advocate for the respondent to this appeal argues, however, that in the mortgage-deed under consideration there was a contract to the contrary. He is unable to point out any specific stipulation which can be called a contract to the contrary, but he relies on the two provisions in the mortgage-deed, one the stipulation regarding the recovery of the outlay on improvements, which has been referred to above, and the other, a stipulation regarding the payment by the mortgagor on redemption of arrears due by tenants and contends that as we find these stipulations in the deed and find no express stipulation providing that the mortgagor is to repay at the time of redemption any sums paid by the mortgagee to save the property from forfeiture or sale, a contract to the contrary must be inferred. Further on the question as to whether the mortgagee was entitled to interest on these sums, he referred to the fact that the bond provided that payments by the mortgagor at the time of redemption on account of outlay on wells and on account of arrears due from tenants were to carry interest at the rate of twelve per cent. per annum. It was argued that even if the mortgagees are entitled to recover the amount they paid as revenue on the mortgagor's behalf, they are not entitled to interest thereon. These contentions are ingenious, but we can not accede to them. The mortgagor made himself personally liable for payment of the enhanced revenue and we cannot hold that the absence from the bond of any provision for the mortgagor breaking his word amounts to a contract that the mortgagee is not to recover along with the principal the sums which he had to pay in order to save the property, owing to the mortgagor's default. It is true, that the mortgagee, had he so chosen, might have sued the mortgagor from time to time on the personal covenant and recovered year by year the excess amount of land-revenue which the mortgagor had contracted to pay. But we hold that he was not bound to do so. We cannot read into the mortgage-deed any contract to the contrary either as regards recovery of the principal sum paid for revenue, or as regards interest thereon. But we hold that he was not bound to do so. We cannot read into the mortgage-deed any contract to the contrary either as regards recovery of the principal sum paid for revenue, or as regards interest thereon. For the above reasons we sustain the first plea in the memorandum of appeal and hold that the appellants are entitled to the amount of Rs. 895-15-9 which they paid for each of the years, 1873 to 1878 inclusive, and that each of these sums should carry interest at the stipulated rate of twelve per cent, per annum from the beginning of the year following that on account of which it was paid upto the date which we now fix for redemption, namely, the 10th of August, 1906. To this extent we allow this appeal and vary the decree of the court below. Quoad ultra the appeal is dismissed. The parties will pay and receive costs here and in the courts below in proportion to their failure and success here, and the costs in this court will include fees on the higher scale. The office will calculate the amount payable on the date mentioned above, and the amount so calculated, after being shown to the Counsel on both sides will be entered in the decree.