JUDGMENT : G.K. Misra, J. - Disputed lands constitute seven acres and odd situate in village Jagannathpur in the district of Ganjam. Plaintiff delivered possession of the disputed lands under a usufructuary mortgage bond (ext. 1) on 7.10.1950 executed by him in favour of the Defendant in respect of a loan of Rs. 2000/ -. There was a stipulation that the mortgagee would enjoy the usufruct of the land in lieu of interest till Chaitra Purnima of the year 1956 for a period of five years. On the expiry thereof, the mortgagee would continue in possession on the same terms until the principal was paid by the mortgagor. On 19th of March 1959, the suit for redemption was filed on the averment that the usufruct enjoyed by the Defendant from 1950 to 1959 was much more than the principal sum of Rs. 2000/ - and interest payable at the rate of 9% per annum and that on accounts being taken, Plaintiff would be entitled to get some money. Accordingly, there was a prayer for taking accounts. The fact of advance of the loan under the usufructuary mortgage bond and of the existence of a term therein to the effect that the usufruct would be appropriated in lieu of interest is not disputed. It was, however, asserted in the written statement that there being an agreement to the effect that the usufruct would be appropriated in lieu of interest Plaintiff's' prayer for accounting is not maintainable. Plaintiff's suit was dismissed by the trial Court and decreed by the lower appellate Court. Against the reversing judgment, the second appeal has been filed. During the pendency of the second appeal, a period of fifteen years elapsed from the date of the mortgage bond. For the first time in second appeal a contention was advanced that u/s 17 of the Orissa Money Lenders Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the possessory mortgage became extinguished and Plaintiff is not entitled to ask for accounts in respect of a mortgage which stands statutorily extinguished. 2. Mr. Mohanty advance two contentions: (1) In view of the stipulation in ext. 1 that the usufruct would be appropriated in lieu of interest, Section 77 T.P. Act has full application and the mortgagee is not liable to render accounts. 2. Mr. Mohanty advance two contentions: (1) In view of the stipulation in ext. 1 that the usufruct would be appropriated in lieu of interest, Section 77 T.P. Act has full application and the mortgagee is not liable to render accounts. Section 9 of the Act prescribing interest at 9% simple per annum in case of a secured loan has no application to such a case. (2) The possessory mortgage (ext. 1) shall be deemed to stand discharged u/s 17 of the Act after the expiration of fifteen years from the date of mortgage. The mortgagee has no further liability to render accounts thereafter. Both the contentions require careful examination. 3. Section 77 T.P. Act lays down that nothing in Section 76 Clauses (b), (d), (g) and (h), applies to cases where there is a contract between the mortgagee and the mortgagor that the receipts from the mortgaged property shall, so long as the mortgagee is in possession of the property, be taken in lieu of interest on the principal money, or in lieu of such interest and defined portions of the principal. Under Section 76(g) a mortgagee in possession has the liability to keep clear, full and accurate accounts of all sums received and spent by him as mortgagee. Thus the liability to keep accounts u/s 76(g) ceases u/s 77 when there is a contract between the mortgagor and mortgagee that the receipts from the mortgaged property shall be taken in lieu of interest on the principals money so long as the mortgagee is in possession. If Section 77 was the only provision of law in the field mortgagor's claim for taking accounts would have been dismissed. The section is clear on the face of it. 4. Section 9 of the Act, however, lays down that notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or in anything having the force of law or in any contract, no Court shall, in any suit whether brought by a money-lender or by any other person in respect of a loan advanced after the commencement of this Act, pass a decree for interest at rates exceeding 9 per centum simple per annum in the case of a secured loan and 12 per centum simple per annum in the case of an unsecured loan. In Aliana v. Vaddadi Pedda and Ors. I.L.R 1966 Cutt. In Aliana v. Vaddadi Pedda and Ors. I.L.R 1966 Cutt. 246 this Court held that Section 9 had full application to possessory mortgages. Mr. Mohanty concedes that the aforesaid decision is directly against his contention. The view expressed therein is fully supported by a Bench decision in Md. Yusuf and Others Vs. Sarifan Bibi and Others, . 5. Mr. Mohanty, however, contended that a contrary view has been expressed in an unreported decision of this Court in Madhu Domb v. Dano Bhagato S.A. 252 of 1959, and that the case should be referred to a larger Bench. On a reference to the facts of that case it appears that the mortgage deed was executed on 15th of May 1938 and that the suit was filed on 8-7-1951 after the expiry of fifteen years from the date of the mortgage. It was held therein that the mortgage became extinguished u/s 17 of the Act and only the further rights prescribed therein can be enforced by the mortgagor and he cannot ask for accounts. On the facts of that case, the question raised in this appeal as to the right of the mortgagor to ask for accounts before the expiry of fifteen years did not arise. The effect of Section 9 of the. Act was neither raised nor decided in that case. There is, therefore, no conflict between two decisions. Mr. Mohanty placed further reliance on C.S. Jagannatha Aiyangar Vs. Senniveera Chettiar and Another, and Doctor Manavala Ayyar Vs. Muhammad Yoosaf Maracair (since deceased) and Others, in support of a contention that receipts by the mortgagee in lieu of interest cannot be said to be payments. Those decisions were based on special provisions of the Madras Act. Similar provisions in the Madras Act were fully discussed and distinguished in Aliana v. Vaddadi Pedda and Ors. I.L.R 1966 Cutt. 246. Even on a common sense view I am satisfied that receipts of usufructs in lieu of interest must be taken as payments towards loan. If these decisions laid down anything to the contrary, with respect I am unable to accept them as laying down good law. Reliance was placed on Mahant Ramdhan Puri Vs. Bankey Bihari Saran and Others. This case did not discuss the effect of the corresponding provision of the Money Lenders Act on Section 77 of the T.P. Act and was rightly distinguished in Md. Yusuf and Others Vs. Reliance was placed on Mahant Ramdhan Puri Vs. Bankey Bihari Saran and Others. This case did not discuss the effect of the corresponding provision of the Money Lenders Act on Section 77 of the T.P. Act and was rightly distinguished in Md. Yusuf and Others Vs. Sarifan Bibi and Others which is in line with Aliana v. Vaddadi Pedda and Ors. I.L.R 1966 Cutt. 246. The first contention must accordingly be rejected. 6. The second contention has equally no force. u/s 17 of the Act, the possessory mortgage stands statutorily extinguished after the expiry of fifteen years. The rights saved to the mortgagor thereafter are those which are saved in the section itself. Those rights are that the mortgagee shall deliver up to the mortgagor all documents in his possession or power relating to the mortgaged property and shall, if so required, retransfer the property to the mortgagor at his cost free from the mortgage and from all encumbrances created by him or those claiming under him and shall also put the mortgagor in possession of the property. Section 17 cannot, however, stand in the way of mortgagor to redeem the mortgage before expiry of fifteen years. The equity of redemption vests in the mortgagor. No clog has been put on the right to redeem in any statute before the expiry of fifteen years. If such a right is exercised within fifteen years, it is open to the mortgagor to ask for accounts and to recover the excess amount found on accounting. Section 17 is a beneficial provision in favour of the mortgagor. If the mortgagee is in possession of the property and the usufruct derived therefrom is not sufficient even to meet a portion of the interest what of the principal, the mortgage will stand extinguished after tile expiry of fifteen years. The right of the mortgagee to continue in possession after the prescribed period is thus brought to an end. The proposition advanced by Mr. Mohanty is untenable. 7 To sum up, a possessory mortgagee becomes extinguished on the expiry of fifteen years from the date of the mortgage. The mortgagor has, however, the right to redeem his mortgage at any time prior to the expiry of fifteen years. If he exercises his right, the mortgagee is bound to render accounts despite Section 77 of the T.P. Act. 8. The mortgagor has, however, the right to redeem his mortgage at any time prior to the expiry of fifteen years. If he exercises his right, the mortgagee is bound to render accounts despite Section 77 of the T.P. Act. 8. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. Final Result : Dismissed