Judgment :- 1. This appeal arises from proceedings under the Kerala Agriculturists Debt Relief Act, XXXI of 1958. The respondent applied for redemption of a mortgage, Ext. D-1, as provided by S.11 of the Act. The application was dismissed by the trial court and the lower appellate court on the ground that the respondent should have applied for redemption of a subsequent mortgage, Ext. D-3 also and should have deposited half the mortgage amount under Exts. D-1 and D-3. In second appeal our learned brother, Madhavan Nair, J., held that the respondent was entitled to redeem Ext. D-1 alone and that the application under S.11 should be allowed. This appeal by special leave is preferred by the mortgagee from this decision. 2. The facts necessary for the decision of the appeal may be stated: On 28th January 1952 an usufructuary mortgage deed, Ext. D-1, was executed by the respondent for a sum of Rs. 2,000 and a term of two years was fixed; and under this deed the mortgagee was to appropriate the income towards the interest on the mortgage amount. The appellant before us obtained an assignment of the mortgage on 8th September 1953 and on the same day the mortgagor executed a second mortgage, Ext. D-3, called a puravaipa deed for a sum of Rs. 1,000 in favour of the assignee. Ext. D-3 was a simple mortgage and the mortgage money was charged on the equity of redemption of the property mortgaged under Ext. D-1. The mortgagor undertook to pay the sum of Rs. 1,000 advanced under Ext D-3 along with the mortgage money under Ext. D-1 after two years. It was further provided that he would pay interest at the rate of 1 per cent per month and in case of default, interest on the arrears also would be paid at the same rate. There was a further clause that in case interest was not paid at the end of each month the mortgagee could sue for recovery of the mortgage money and interest before the expiry of the term. The mortgagor applied under S.11 of the Act for redemption of Ext. D-1 and made an initial deposit of Rs. 1,000 which constitutes one half of the mortgage money. The appellant contended that the respondent was not entitled to redeem Ext. D-1 alone, that he should apply for redemption of Ext. The mortgagor applied under S.11 of the Act for redemption of Ext. D-1 and made an initial deposit of Rs. 1,000 which constitutes one half of the mortgage money. The appellant contended that the respondent was not entitled to redeem Ext. D-1 alone, that he should apply for redemption of Ext. D-3 also and that one half of the amount under Ext. D-3 was also to be deposited. This contention which was upheld by the court of first instance and the lower appellate court was found against in second appeal, and this is the only question arising for decision in this appeal. 3. Act XXXI of 1958 (Kerala) contains different provisions for redemption of usufructuary mortgages and debts other than those covered by usufructuary mortgages. S.4 deals with the discharge of debts falling within the latter category and the debtor gets the benefit of payment in 17 half-yearly instalments. S.11 which relates to discharge of usufructuary mortgage debts provides for payment of 50 per cent of the debt initially and the balance in 10 half-yearly instalments. The respondent's application under S.11 is liable to be dismissed if the two mortgages, Exts D-1 and D-3, are to be consolidated for the purpose of redemption, as half the mortgage money has not been deposited. 4. It is urged on behalf of the appellant that though S.61 of the Transfer of Property Act enables a mortgagor who has executed two or more mortgages in favour of the same mortgagee to redeem any one of such mortgages separately, such right can be exercised only "in the absence of a contract to the contrary" and that Ext. D-3 contains a contract to the contrary. The question is whether there is any provision in Ext. D-3 by which the mortgagor can be taken as having contracted himself out of the right to redeem Ext. D-1 separately. 5. The only clause in Ext. D-3 on which reliance is placed by the appellant is that which provides for payment of the mortgage money under Ext. D-3 along with the amount under Ext. D-1. Madhavan Nair, J., has held that this only indicates the time for payment of the amount under Ext. D-3, and we are inclined to agree with this view. 6. D-3 on which reliance is placed by the appellant is that which provides for payment of the mortgage money under Ext. D-3 along with the amount under Ext. D-1. Madhavan Nair, J., has held that this only indicates the time for payment of the amount under Ext. D-3, and we are inclined to agree with this view. 6. Decisions before and after the amendment of S.61 of the Transfer of Property Act throw light on the question as to what would amount to a "contract to the contrary". In Jiwan Das v. Tharaj ILR.1 Lahore 105 which was decided before S.61 was amended, Shadi Lal, J., held: "The principle of law which finds expression in S.61 of the Transfer of Property Act, is to the effect that a mortgagor seeking to redeem any one mortgage, shall, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, be entitled to do so without paying any money due under any separate mortgage on property other than that comprised in the mortgage which he seeks to redeem. It is therefore clear that the onus lies upon the defendants to establish a contract which precludes the plaintiffs from redeeming the property affected by the three mortgages without paying the money due on the two mortgages in question. It must be remembered that as consolidation has the effect of interfering with the right of a mortgagor to redeem a mortgage on one property without being required to redeem another mortgage relating to a different property, a court of justice will always struggle against an interference with the mortgagor's right, unless the covenant is shown to be express and unequivocal." In Bhartu v. Dalip 3 All. Q. 672 a person made a prior usufructuary mortgage of certain "property in favour of three persons for Rs. 1,000 and subsequently made a simple mortgage of the same property in favour of those persons for Rs. 1,500 (i.e. 500 plus Rs. 1,000 due under a prior bond) stipulating in the later deed that the mortgagor would not redeem the property unless he paid "the said amounts" i. e., the sum secured by the second mortgage with interest and the suit was brought for redemption of the Usufructuary mortgage only. 1,500 (i.e. 500 plus Rs. 1,000 due under a prior bond) stipulating in the later deed that the mortgagor would not redeem the property unless he paid "the said amounts" i. e., the sum secured by the second mortgage with interest and the suit was brought for redemption of the Usufructuary mortgage only. Though it was held that S.61 of the Transfer of Property Act as it then stood would not apply, it was held: "It may be that if parties to mortgage transactions determine and agree so to consolidate mortgage securities as to preclude the mortgagor from redeeming one without redeeming all, their contract in that regard would be enforced. But in this case we are unable to discover, that there was any such clear and distinct contract entered into between the parties as obliged the mortgagor to redeem both mortgages at the same time. There is no doubt that the mortgagor undertook to pay the money advanced on the later security along with the money due on the earlier security, but further than that he did not go. There is an express provision in the later deed that the mortgaged land should not be redeemed unless the mortgagor paid the amounts which have been earmarked in the earlier passage as being the two sums, namely, one of Rs. 1,000 secured by the bond of the 17th of May 1881, and the other the further advance of Rs. 500. From this we gather that the parties contemplated that the mortgagor should be at liberty to redeem the later mortgage on payment of the two sums secured by it, namely, Rs. 1,500. If he was so at liberty to redeem that mortgage at any time, there is no reason why he should be precluded from redeeming the earlier mortgage by payment of the amount secured by it. It may be that the parties intended to consolidate the two mortgages but they have not expressed their intention with sufficient clearness so as to enable the court to say that they had done so and prevent full operation being given to the provisions of S.60 and 62 of the Transfer of Property Act." In Gaya Din V. Har Karan AIR. 1914 Oudh 23 it was held that a mere undertaking by a mortgagor to pay the money advanced on a later mortgage along with the money due under an earlier mortgage was merely an indication of the time fixed for payment of the sura and did not amount to a consolidation of the debts so as to preclude the redemption of one without redeeming the other. This view was followed in Jai Narain v. Gokul Singh AIR. 1937 Oudh 321. 7. Our attention was drawn to the decision of a Single Judge of this Court in 1961 K.L.T. 52 allowing consolidation, of a mortgage and purakadom in a case under S.11 of the Kerala Agriculturists Debt Relief Act. We may observe that the decision of the question depends on the existence or otherwise of a contract to the contrary in the later deed and that the said civil revision petition was decided on the construction of the purakadom deed in that case. This cannot be treated as an authority for all cases under S.11, as the decision must depend on the facts of each case. 8. We have already pointed out that the provision in Ext. D-3 only fixes the time for payment of the amount under Ext. D-3. We may add that the provision in Ext. D3 for a suit before the expiry of the term in case of default in the payment of interest reinforces our view that there was no 'contract to the contrary in Ext. D-3. 9. In the result, we confirm the decision under appeal and dismiss the appeal but in the circumstances of the case, without costs. Dismissed.