Judgement JUDGMENT : This appeal arises in a suit for redemption of a usufructuary mortgage. The plaintiff acquiring the equity of redemption under a sale deed Ex. A. 2 dated 05-4-1947, executed by Kalian, the son of Rajagopal Chetti instituted the present suit for redemption. The property was usufructuarily mortgaged by Rajagopal Chetti, the father of the vendor of the plaintiff, and his brother Krishnan Chetti to Sabji alias Abdul Rahiman for Rs. 2000 on 03-1-1926 (Ex. 13. 2). Subsequently on 12-7-1926 a simple mortgage, Ex. B. 3 was executed by Rajagopal Chetti to the same mortgagee for a further advance of Rs. 500. The interest of Krishna Chetti was purchased by the mortgagee under Ex. B. 6 dated 15-9-1928. The suit for redemption by the plaintiff was resisted on two grounds, namely, that the plaintiff was entitled to redeem only a moiety of the property since he claimed under a sale deed executed by the son of one of the mortgagors, the other mortgagor having already parted with his interest in the property in favour of the mortgagee. This contention was met by the plea that the property absolutely belonged to Rajagopal Chetti and his brother Krishnan Chetti had no interest and was added as a formal party to Ex. B. 2. This contention found favour in the hands of the lower Courts and the property was held to be the absolute property of Rajagopal Chetti. The plaintiff therefore had acquired the entire interest in the property and not to a moiety as contended by the defendants. With this finding I am unable to find any ground for interference. 2. The other contention is that under the terms of Ex. B. 3, the subsequent simple mortgage executed by Rajagopal Chetti, the plaintiff is bound to redeem both the mortgages, Ex. B. 2 and B. 3 and without the payment of the amount due under Ex. B. 3 no redemption decree can be passed. The condition in Ex. B. 3 is as follows : (After stating the condition in the Tamil script the judgment proceeds :) Certain period has been fixed in Ex. B. 3 for redemption and the clause that is referred to provides that even though the period fixed for payment under Ex. B. 3 expires, when the sum of Rs. 2000 is paid under the earlier document, Ex. B. 2, this sum also would be paid. B. 3 for redemption and the clause that is referred to provides that even though the period fixed for payment under Ex. B. 3 expires, when the sum of Rs. 2000 is paid under the earlier document, Ex. B. 2, this sum also would be paid. This clause was construed by the lower Courts as a clog on the equity of redemption and therefore held to be void and the Courts below granted a decree for redemption ignoring the condition incorporated in Ex. B. 3. It is urged that such a condition would not amount to a clog on redemption for which reliance is placed on - Har Prasad v. Ramchandar, 44 All 37 : (AIR 1922 All 174) (A) and - Punnuram v. Ghulam Hassan, 7 Lah 297 : (AIR 1926 Lah 494) (B). I am satisfied that the lower Courts have erred in construing the clause as amounting to a clog on the equity of redemption. But the question which still remains is whether the plaintiff would be disentitled from redeeming one of the mortgages since he is entitled under S. 61, Transfer of Property Act to redeem separately the mortgages when executed in favour of the same person. Section 61 of the Act provides : "A mortgagor who has executed two or more mortgages in favour of the same mortgagee shall, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, when the principal money of any two or more of the mortgages has become due, be entitled to redeem any one such mortgage separately, and any two or more of such mortgages together." 3. Mr. Ramachandra Aiyar does not contest the right of a mortgagor who has executed two or more mortgages in favour of the same mortgagee to redeem any one such mortgage separately but contends that the clause in Ex. B. 3 which is relied on as amounting to a clog on the equity of redemption amounts to a contract to the contrary within the meaning of S. 61 and therefore the plaintiff must redeem both the mortgages together. The contract to the contrary to exclude the operation of S. 61 must be specific and explicit in terms. There must be a stipulation for simultaneous redemption to disentitle the plaintiff from claiming separate redemption under S. 61 of the Act. The clause, which is now extracted, provides that notwithstanding the period stipulated in Ex. The contract to the contrary to exclude the operation of S. 61 must be specific and explicit in terms. There must be a stipulation for simultaneous redemption to disentitle the plaintiff from claiming separate redemption under S. 61 of the Act. The clause, which is now extracted, provides that notwithstanding the period stipulated in Ex. B. 3, and even though that period has expired, the mortgagor undertakes to pay the amount along with the sum of Rs. 2,000 due under the earlier mortgage as and when it is paid. This would not be sufficient to show that the mortgagor has undertaken to redeem both the mortgages simultaneously as the effect of this clause amounts to extending the period for payment under Ex. B. 3 to a date when the payment is made under Ex. B. 2, namely, the payment of Rs. 2000 under the usufructuary mortgage. 4. A clause in almost similar terms has been the subject of construction in - Gangabai v. Kirtarath Rai, 33 All 393 (C). In that case two persons mortgaged certain property in 1879. In 1883 one of the mortgagors executed a mortgage comprising in part property subject to the mortgage of 1879 and in part other property in favour of the same mortgagee. This later mortgage contained a stipulation that the mortgagor would redeem it before redeeming the mortgage of 1879. Certain property comprised in the first mortgage but not in the second was sold and the purchasers sued for redemption of that mortgage alone. It was held that in the circumstances they were not precluded by the covenant in the second mortgage from redeeming the first. The clause there on which reliance was placed was : "First, I (the mortgagor) shall pay this money and then the money borrowed on the security of fields (the fields representing the property comprised in the first mortgage.)" The learned Judges on the true construction of the agreement in the later mortgage have observed : "By the second mortgage no charge whatever was created upon the property comprised in the first mortgage. This second mortgage was executed by Ram Lakhan alone and by the undertaking which Kara Lakhan gave, he could not in any way prejudice the rights of Ram Baran or his heirs. This second mortgage was executed by Ram Lakhan alone and by the undertaking which Kara Lakhan gave, he could not in any way prejudice the rights of Ram Baran or his heirs. Moreover, the agreement is not an agreement whereby the mortgagor deprived himself or purported to deprive himself of the right to redeem the first mortgage. It is simply an agreement on his part to pay the money secured by the second mortgage first and then the money secured by the first mortgage. There is nothing more than a provision fixing the time for payment." 5. Here the first mortgage has been executed by Rajagopal Chetti and Krishna Chetti while the second mortgage is by Rajagopal Chetti alone. The clause in the second mortgage amounts to nothing more than extending the period of payment to a date when actually Rs. 2,000 would be paid under Ex. B. 2. The clause relied on cannot therefore amount to a contract to the contrary within the meaning of S. 61, Transfer of Property Act and the right of redemption of the earlier mortgage by the plaintiff is not taken away. The decree of the lower Courts have therefore to be supported and upheld. The appeal fails and is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs in this appeal. No leave. Appeal dismissed.