JUDGMENT : Piggott, J. This is a plaintiff's appeal in a suit for redemption. The lower appellate court has passed a decree in the prescribed form subject to payment by the plaintiff of Rs. 798, the amount of the mortgage-debt, plus a sum of Rs. 290, described as being mesne profits for the years 1318 and 1319 Fasli. The appeal by the plaintiff is in respect of this sum of Rs. 290 only. The plaintiff is a second mortgagee of the land in suit, his mortgage deed being one dated May the 12th, 1909, while the contesting defendants were in possession under two deeds of 1901 and 1906. On the very day on which the plaintiff obtained his mortgage he deposited in court a sum of Rs. 798 for redemption of the previously existing usufructuary mortgages. It appears that he then contrived somehow or other to obtain possession of the mortgaged property, without any further proceeding or order by any competent court. This led to a suit in which the present plaintiff was the defendant and the prior mortgagees as plaintiffs claimed recovery of possession and mesne profits. That suit was decreed in favour of the prior mortgagees on 27th September 1910, and this decree was affirmed on appeal on the 24th March 1911. Formal possession was given to the prior mortgagees on the 21st of September 1911, but it is alleged that actual possession nevertheless remained with the present plaintiff. A point of importance with reference to the decree in the former suit is that in that suit the prior mortgagees claimed mesne profits for one year and future mesne profits until actual recovery of possession. Their claim was decreed, and although the decree as originally drawn up was defective, it was eventually put right on the motion of the decree-holders themselves by an order dated the 21st December, 1911. It is, therefore, quite clear that the prior mortgagees both sued for and obtained a decree awarding them mesne promts up to actual recovery of possession this decree had been passed, but before it had been executed that is to say, on May 12th, 1911, the plaintiff again deposited the principal sum of Rs. 798, due under the prior mortgages, and caused due notice of the same to be served on the mortgagees. 798, due under the prior mortgages, and caused due notice of the same to be served on the mortgagees. From the terms of the deed of 1901 it appears that he was entitled to redeem those mortgages by payment of the principal debt on the last day of the month of Jeth in any year in the year 1911 this date would correspond with the 10th of June of the English calendar. It may be said that the mortgagees were not bound to take notice of or to accept, that deposit before the 10th of June, 1911, but from that date it would seem that they should have accepted the deposit and made over their rights as mortgagees to the plaintiff. They had obtained a decree for recovery of possession and mesne profits in respect of the trespass committed by the plaintiff when he unlawfully took possession in 1909, and it is difficult to see how can they have any claim to recover mesne profits otherwise than under the terms of that decree. My attention has been drawn to the terms of the mortgage-deed of 1901. The first part of this document is a usufructuary mortgage in the ordinary terms, providing that profits be set off against interest without any account taken. There is, however, a penalty clause which is much relied on by the respondents to the present appeal. This provides that in the event of the mortgagors preventing the mortgagees from obtaining mutation of names in the revenue papers, or in the event of any interference with the possession of the mortgagees, the latter will be entitled at once to sue for the principal of the mortgage debt with interest at Rs. 2 per cent per mensem and to recover the same from the mortgaged property or other property of the mortgagors. I do not think it necessary to decide whether the terms of this penalty clause could be enforced as against a person other than the original mortgagors. 2 per cent per mensem and to recover the same from the mortgaged property or other property of the mortgagors. I do not think it necessary to decide whether the terms of this penalty clause could be enforced as against a person other than the original mortgagors. If it be granted for the sake of argument that when the present plaintiff appellant took wrongful possession of the land in suit in the year 1909, the prior mortgagees would have been entitled to maintain a suit for recovery of their mortgage money with interest at the specified rate, it still seems sufficiently clear that they could not both maintain such a suit and proceed against the present appellant as an ordinary trespasser by a suit for recovery of possession and mesne profits. To put the matter briefly, my opinion is that the prior mortgagees had exhausted their remedy in respect of the trespass committed by the present appellant in 1909 when they obtained their decree against him. He was entitled to redeem the mortgaged property in their hands on payment of the principal amount of the mortgage-debt, and the tender made by him in May 1911 should have been accepted when duly notified to the prior mortgagees. I, therefore, accept this appeal and in modification of the decree of the lower appellate court give the plaintiff a decree for redemption in the usual form on payment of the sum of Rs. 798, and I extend the period for payment to three months from the date of this decree. The appellant will get his costs of this appeal.