Judgement Appeal (No. 93 of 1893) from a decree of the High Court (December 10, 1920) modifying a decree of the senior Subordinate Judge of Ferozepur. In the year 1888 Diwan Singh executed two usufructuary mortgages of land in mauza Salina for Rs. 1800 and Rs. 5500 respectively; these mortgages provided that the mortgagees were to cultivate the land, enjoy its produce, and pay the Government revenue. On June 26, 1890, he borrowed a further sum of Rs. 800 from the same mortgagees and executed a mortgage of the same land. The mortgage referred to the further advance as " additional mortgage money " and provided " I, the mortgagor, shall annually pay interest on Rs. 800 at the rate of R.1 per cent, to the mortgagees, with interest at the fixed rate on the amount of interest remaining due. I will 35 Law. Rep. 51 Ind. App. 377 ( 1923- 1924) Ganga Ram V. Natha Singh 136 redeem the mortgaged land on payment of the previous and the present mortgage-money to the mortgagees." On October 25, 1890, Diwan Singh borrowed another sum of Rs. 800 from the same mortgagees, and executed a further mortgage of the same land. The document provided " Interest on the aforesaid Rs. 800 has been agreed to be paid at Rs. 1-8-0 per cent, per mensem. I shall without objection pay the additional mortgage - money with interest in the following instalments.....On payment of previous and present mortgage-money at Nimani festival I shall redeem the mortgaged land. If I pay the previous and present mortgage-money in two instalments, I shall redeem the land in proportion to the amount paid. I have received the additional mortgage-money as per detail given below..... If I do not pay the additional mortgage-money according to the instalments mentioned above, along with interest, then interest at the rate fixed will be added to the said amount.” In 1891 Diwan Singh executed a further usufructuary mortgage of the same land. In 1914 the respondents the representatives of Diwan Singh, deceased, sued to redeem the first four mortgages above mentioned. The trial judge made a decree for redemption upon payment of the sums advanced and sums for interest under the two mortgages of 1890; he held that the interest due under those two mortgages was a charge upon the land. In 1914 the respondents the representatives of Diwan Singh, deceased, sued to redeem the first four mortgages above mentioned. The trial judge made a decree for redemption upon payment of the sums advanced and sums for interest under the two mortgages of 1890; he held that the interest due under those two mortgages was a charge upon the land. The High Court allowed an appeal, and made a decree for redemption upon payment of the sums advanced. The learned judges (Chevis and Raoof JJ.) were of opinion that the terms of the documents of 1890 indicated that the interest provided for was not intended to be a charge upon the land. 1924. May 12. Wallach for the appellants, referred to Alia Khan v. Kanshi Ram ( 1913 P. R. No. 45.), which he distinguished, also to s. 58 (a) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The respondents did not appear. May 13. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by LORD DUNEDIN. In this case the plaintiffs sue for redemption of five mortgages. Two of those mortgages, the earlier two in date, were usufructuary mortgages ; the other mortgages were not usufructuary, but with regard to the next two—for as to the fifth one there is no question at all—there is a recital that interest is to be paid upon the sum borrowed. Now, the whole point of the case is whether that interest under the third and fourth mortgages does or does not form a charge upon the property. The learned trial judge held that it did form a charge on the property, and therefore granted redemption only upon terms of paying the principal sums and the interest. That decree was reversed upon appeal, and the High Court allowed redemption upon payment of the principal loan only. Their Lordships find that in the judgment of the learned judges in the High Court they state with perfect correctness what their Lordships apprehend is undoubted law. They say “The general rule is that the mortgagee in the absence of any contract to the contrary is entitled to treat the interest due under the mortgage as a charge on the estate.” Their Lordships have been entirely unable to find anything in the deeds which would serve to displace that general rule. The learned judges seem to have relied particularly upon the case of Alia Khan v. 35 Law. Rep. 51 Ind. The learned judges seem to have relied particularly upon the case of Alia Khan v. 35 Law. Rep. 51 Ind. App. 377 ( 1923- 1924) Ganga Ram V. Natha Singh 137 Kanshi Ram. ( 1913 P. R. No. 45.) It is, perhaps, a little difficult to follow that case, as the material parts of the deed in question are only printed in the vernacular ; but it is perfectly clear from the report even as it stands that the sum to be paid in order to redeem was mentioned in different parts of the deed, and that consequently the deed itself formed, so to speak, a glossary for the particular meaning of the word that was used when you came to the repayment clause. Nothing of this sort is here. The mortgages are expressed with great brevity, and, indeed, if there is anything at all, it rather seems, such as it is, to point the other way, because, especially in the fourth mortgage, there is this expression " I shall without objection pay the additional mortgage-money with interest in the following instalments." That certainly points much more in favour of the general rule than against it, but it is quite enough to say that there is nothing to be found here which disturbs the general rule, which, it is most important, should not be shaken in any particular. It is impossible to restore in terms the decree of the trial judge, because it was discovered in the course of the hearing before the High Court that the plaintiffs were not in right in the whole of the mortgages, and accordingly the judgment of the High Court ran " We give the plaintiffs a decree for redemption of whatever share in the mortgaged land is still owed by them on payment of a proportionate share of the principal debt." There ought, therefore, to be a declaration that it is not only a share of the principal debt, but also interest that must be paid before redemption, and the case will have to go back in order that the decree may be worked out on those terms. Their Lordships therefore think that the appeal must be allowed, with costs here and below, and they will humbly advise His Majesty accordingly.