JUDGMENT Seth, J. - This is a Defendant's appeal against a final decree in a redemption suit. The Appellant is not the mortgagee himself but is a representative in interest of the original mortgagee, the mortgagee rights having come to him through successive transfers. 2. The mortgage in suit was a mortgage with possession. The mortgagor agreed to pay interest at the rate of 2 p.c. per month after deducting rent at the rate of Rs. 2 per mensem, for each shop, two of which were mortgaged. The amount borrowed was Rs. 325. None of the various persons who became possessed of the mortgagee rights from time to time, kept, any accounts and therefore, it has not been possible for the Courts below to ascertain the actual amount realised by the mortgagee from the usufruct of the property mortgaged. The mortgage deed also authorised the mortgagee to keep the mortgaged property in repairs and to add the cost of repairs to the mortgage money. It was also stipulated that the mortgagor would be liable to pay interest on this amount also which was to be added to the mortgage money. 3. The trial Court allowed redemption on payment of Rs. 325 only which is the principal amount secured on a finding that the mortgagee not having kept any accounts was not entitled to anything on account of cost of repairs and that the usufruct from the property was sufficient to pay up the interest. On appeal the lower appellate Court has allowed redemption on payment on Rs. 325 on account of principal and Rs. 204 on account of cost of repairs. That Court has also held that the income from the property was sufficient for the payment of the interest. 4. The first point urged in this appeal is that no duty was cast upon the mortgagee to keep any accounts and therefore the Court below should not have taken that fact into consideration in determining the amount payable to the mortgagee. It is urged that the Courts below have not relied upon any evidence in arriving at their findings that the income was sufficient to pay up the interest. 5. It is next contended that Section 76 of the Transfer of Property Act being inapplicable, the Courts below were not justified in raising any presumption. It is urged that the Courts below have not relied upon any evidence in arriving at their findings that the income was sufficient to pay up the interest. 5. It is next contended that Section 76 of the Transfer of Property Act being inapplicable, the Courts below were not justified in raising any presumption. In support of the contention that Section 76 of the Transfer of Property Act is not applicable to such a case. Reliance has been placed upon a decision of a single Judge of this Courts in Kallu Vs. Ganesh and Others, AIR 1929 All 348 in which it has been, held that Section 76, T.P. Act, applies only to a case when during the continuance of the mortgage, the mortgagee takes possession of the mortgaged property and does not apply to a case where the mortgage is in its inception usufructuary. A contrary view has been taken by the late Chief Court of Avadh in Lakshmi Narain v. Mohammadi Begur ILR 7 Luck 454. I am unable to agree with the views of Ashworth, J., expressed in Kallu's case that Section 76 of the Transfer of Property Act does not apply to the case of a usufructuar mortgage. A usufructuary mortgage becomes operative from the time whenit is registered. If possession is delivered to the mortgagee the execution of the document in pursuance of its terms fail to see why it cannot be said that the mortgagee has taken possession during the continuance of the mortgage. The possession in such a case would begin after the mortgage deed had come into operation, and every moment in between the time of the mortgage deed coming into operation and its discharge would be a part of the period during which the mortgage continues. The mortgagor was, therefore, under a statutory liability to maintain accounts of the income from the usufruct of the property mortgaged. Even if there were an express covenant to the contrary the mortgagee could not have availed himself of that covenant. The mortgagor was, therefore, under a statutory liability to maintain accounts of the income from the usufruct of the property mortgaged. Even if there were an express covenant to the contrary the mortgagee could not have availed himself of that covenant. It has been held by a Full Bench of this Court in Mohammad Ishaq Khan v. Rup Narain Singh 1931 A.L.J. 977 that u/s 76(b) T.P. Act the liability of the mortgagee in possession to give credit for the receipts, after deducting the expenses and interest, in the account is absolute, and he cannot contract himself out of the statutory liability unless he can bring himself strictly within the exception provided by Section 77 T.P. Act. Under these circumstances the Courts below were perfectly justified in disallowing interest to the mortgagee. 6. The decision of Their Lordships of the Privy Council in Shadi Lal v. Lal Bahadur alias Jagdamba Sahai 1933 A.L.J. 339 P.C. has been summarised in the head note of the case as follows: Where the mortgagee in possession placed before the court, a day before the judgment was pronounced, and after the evidence was closed, (Sic) accounts which apparently are prepared from Knataunis kept (Sic) the revenue authorities, and no (Sic) receipts from the land were down in the accounts, held, that the mortgagee did not comply with (Sic) provisions of Section 76(g) T.P. Act, and in the circumstances the high Court rightly disallowed the (Sic) for interest. 7. As a matter of fact the Courts (Sic) have not disallowed interest in this case by way of penalty for (Sic) keeping accounts as required by (Sic), Evidence on the question of (Sic) was produced by both the parties to the suit. According to the evidence produced on behalf of (Sic) mortgagor, the profits from the property was about Rs. 12 par month. According to the evidence duced on behalf of the Defendant-mortgagee the profit was Rs. 2/8/ per month. The Courts below appeared (Sic) have thought that the evidence produced on either side was exaggerate and having regard to the fact that the rents have considerably (Sic), they were satisfied that the (Sic) of the property was such as (Sic) sufficient to pay up the interest. 8. 2/8/ per month. The Courts below appeared (Sic) have thought that the evidence produced on either side was exaggerate and having regard to the fact that the rents have considerably (Sic), they were satisfied that the (Sic) of the property was such as (Sic) sufficient to pay up the interest. 8. Lastly it has bean contended that was a matter of agreement between (Sic) parties that the increase in the (Sic) was not to be taken into account (Sic) that the usufruct of the property (Sic) to be calculated at the rate of Rs. 2 per month per shop at the (Sic) of accounting. I am unable to (Sic) with this contention either. On proper interpretation of the mortgage deed the intention of the (Sic) does not appear to have bean (Sic) Rs. 2 per month per shop shall (Sic) to be the profits of the (Sic), property irrespective of (Sic) fact whether the rants had in(Sic) or had decreased. It seems (Sic) that all that the period intended to convey by the stipulation under consideration was that at that time the rental value of the property was Rs. 2 per month par shop. A similar case came up for decision before this Court in Gopaljee v. Sheo Shanker (1) in second appeal No. 942 of 1938, decided by Ganga Nath and Dar, JJ. on the 26th March, 1941. The mortgage in that case seams to have been similarly worded as appears from the following quotation from the judgment of the lower appellate Court in that case:- There is a provision for the, payment of interest at 2 per cent per month compoundable half-yearly Rs. 5 per mensem as rent of the house was to go towards the payment of interest. The mortgagee was to be responsible for the repairs of the house, and any sums spent on account of repairs were to be added to the principal money. The mortgagee was a so given the authority to make new constructions, the cost of which was to be added to the principal. 9. The mortgagee was to be responsible for the repairs of the house, and any sums spent on account of repairs were to be added to the principal money. The mortgagee was a so given the authority to make new constructions, the cost of which was to be added to the principal. 9. It was held that in the absence of any accounts having been kept by the mortgagee he was not entitled to add any sum to the mortgage money on account of the expanses of repairs and also that the Courts below were entitled to hold that the income from the property and the interest that had become due were equal, although the method adopted by the Courts below in working out the accounts was not precise. 10. There is no force in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed with costs.