Judgment 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the Additional Subordinate Judge III. Darbhanga, affirming those of the Munsif II, Darbhanga. The suit was filed by the plaintiffs-respondents first part for redemption of some lands which were mortgaged by Jhameli Panliar, father of respondents 1 to 3, by a mortgage deed dated the 25th January, 1928, in favour of the defendant-appellant. Both the Courts below have held that the plaintiffs were entitled to redeem the mortgaged property. 2. Two points have been urged in this second Appeal. In the first place it has been contended that the redemption suit was not maintainable, because the mortgage money was not tendered or deposited as contemplated under Section 83 of the Transfer of Property Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) before the institution of the suit. Mr. Lala Deokinandan Prasad, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, has referred to Sec. 60 of the Act which, inter alia, provides that at any time after the principal money has become due, the mortgagor has a right, on payment or tender, at a proper time and place, of the mortgage money, to require the mortgagee to deliver the mortgagor the mortgage deed and all documents relating to the mortgaged property which are in possession or power of the mortgagee. Learned Counsel submitted that the expression on payment or tender in the section clearly indicates that payment or tender is a condition precedent to the institution of the suit, and since, in the instant case, no payment or tender had been made, the suit was not maintainable. Therefore, according to him, both the Courts below erred in holding that the suit was maintainable at the instance of the plaintiffs. 3. In my opinion, the contention of learned Counsel is not acceptable. In Raghunandan Rai V/s. Raghunandan Pande, AIR 1921 All 353 a Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court had occasion to consider the provision contained in Section 60 of the Act, where a similar point arose before their Lordships for consideration. 3. In my opinion, the contention of learned Counsel is not acceptable. In Raghunandan Rai V/s. Raghunandan Pande, AIR 1921 All 353 a Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court had occasion to consider the provision contained in Section 60 of the Act, where a similar point arose before their Lordships for consideration. Their Lordships observed (at page 355) as follows : "In our opinion a suit may be brought for redemption of a mortgage without tendering the mortgage money to the mortgagee, but redemption will not be allowed unless the amount declared by the decree to be due to the mortgagee be paid or tendered on or before the date fixed by the Court in its decree. In this view, the Court below was wrong in dismissing the suit on the ground that a tender of the mortgage money, or such portion of it as was due, had not been made, and its decision on the point must be set aside." In the case of Dinanath Rai V/s. Rama Rai, AIR 1926 Pat 512, Division Bench of this Court, relying on the above observation of their Lordships of the Allahabad High Court in AIR 1921 All 353 = ILR 43 All 638, took a similar view and held that Sec. 60 only defines the right to redeem, and does not lay down that tender of the mortgage money is a condition precedent to the Institution of the suit for redemption. 4. What Sec. 60 requires is that without payment or tender of the amount due under the mortgage, the mortgagor will not be entitled to redeem it, and for that purpose it is not necessary that the mortgage money should be tendered before the institution of the suit. It is thus clear that a suit for redemption may be brought without tendering the mortgage money to the mortgagee, though redemption shall not be allowed unless the amount declared by the decree to be due to the mortgagee has been paid or tendered on or before the date fixed by the Court in the decree. In the instant case also the trial Court has directed the plaintiffs to deposit Rs. In the instant case also the trial Court has directed the plaintiffs to deposit Rs. 400.00 the bharna money, in the Court to the credit of the defendant within three weeks from the date of the order and asked the defendant to deliver possession of the bharna land to the plaintiffs within two months from the date of the deposit made by them. In that view of the matter, there is no merit in the submission made by learned Counsel for the appellant on this point. 5. Now, I turn to consider his second point. He submitted that the Courts below erred in not directing the plaintiffs to make further deposit of Rs. 292/9/-, which the mortgagee had paid to the landlord as rent of the mortgaged land, as also Rs. 1316/14/-being the amount of interest on Rs. 292/9/- at the rate of Rs. 2/- per cent per month as stipulated under the mortgage deed (Exhibit B), the total being a sum of Rs. 1.609/7/-. The English rendering of the relevant portion of Exhibit B reads as under : "The said creditor has not made any enquiry regarding the title of us, the executants or regarding encumbrance etc. It is only on the assurance given by us the executants, that the creditor has taken in bharna the property let out in rehan hereunder. If ever or at any time, due to any act of us, the executants or our predecessors, any encumbrance on the rehan property comes to light, or if the title of any other person be found, or if (this rehan property) be sold by auction against any debt incurred by us, the executants or our predecessors, or against arrears of rent, due to landlord or if he (the creditor) be dispossessed from a portion or the whole of the property due to the claim put forth by any claimant, or if the said creditor may have to pay some money in order to protect the property let out in rehan here-under, or if any loss be caused to the said creditor, then in that case, we, the executants and our heirs and representatives will pay the entire loss and damages, and the amount paid by the creditor together with principal loan besides interest at the above rate (at Rs. 2/- per cent per month) from the date, when loss would be caused, till the date of realisation, from our person and movable and immovable properties, to the creditor and his heirs and representatives." Learned Counsel, therefore, urged that whatever amount the mortgagee had spent towards the payment of rent of the mortgaged land, he was entitled to get it from the mortgagors together with interest at the rate of Rs. 2/- per cent per month at the time of redemption. 6. Learned Counsel drew my attention to Section 72 of the Act, the relevant portion of which is to the following effect : "72. A mortgagee may spend such money as is necessary- (b) for the preservation of the mortgaged property from destruction, forfeiture or sale; (c) for supporting the mortgagors title to the property; xxxxxand may, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, add such money to the principal money, at the rate of interest payable on the principal, and, where no such rate is fixed, at the rate of nine per cent, per annum; Provided that the expenditure of money by the mortgagee under Clause (b) or Clause (c) shall not be deemed to be necessary unless the mortgagor has been called upon and has failed to take proper and timely steps to preserve the property or to support the title, xxxxx Section 76 of the Act enumerates the liabilities of the mortgagee in possession, the relevant portion of which is as follows:- - "76. When, during the continuance of the mortgage, the mortgagee takes possession of the mortgaged property,-- xxxxx (c) he must, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, out of the income of the property, pay the Govt. revenue, all other charges of a public nature and all rent accruing due in respect thereof during such possession, and any arrears of rent in default of payment of which the property may be summarily sold; xxxxx" In the instant case since there is a stipulation made in Exhibit B. in my opinion, the provisions contained under the two sections referred to above are not of much importance, as the sections themselves clearly provide that they are not applicable if there is a contract to the contrary. Exhibit B, inter alia, mentions that if the creditor may have to pay some money in order to protect the property let out in rehan thereunder, or if any loss be caused to the said creditor, then in that case the executants and their heirs and representatives would be liable to pay the entire loss and damages and the amount paid by the creditor together with principal loan besides interest. Therefore, it is necessary to examine whether there were compelling reasons for the mortgagee to have paid rent to the landlord for the mortgaged property. 7 The Court below has referred to the evidence of defendant No. 1 who was examined as D. W. 4. He stated that the man of the Malik came to him in 1928 and demanded the rent of the mortgaged security saying that the mortgagors had not paid the same. He further stated that he also asked Jhameli Panjiar to pay the rent but he did not pay the same. On the refusal of the mortgagors to pay rent, defendant No. 1 paid the rent and thereafter he continued to pay the same. The Court below also, relying on the proviso to Section 72 of the Act, held that the necessity for payment of rent had not arisen nor the security was in the danger of being sold and as such the payment of rent made by the mortgagee was a voluntary payment and he was not entitled to get that amount from the mortgagors. In Bhuneshwari Devi V/s. Sheogovind Lall Missir AIR 1963 Pat 185 , Kanhaiya Singh and Ramratna Singh, JJ. while considering the provisions contained in Sec. 69 of the Contract Act, 1872, and in Section 72 of the Transfer of Property Act, observed that a mortgagee who had obtained a decree for sale on his mortgage, still has a sufficient interest in the mortgaged property so as to entitle him to make payment in order to save the property from destruction, forfeiture or sale. Therefore, where the mortgagor had defaulted in payment of revenue in respect of the mortgaged property before the appointed date, the property was liable to be advertised for sale under the Bengal Land Revenue States Act, and if the mortgagee decree-holder made payment of the revenue in arrears before the property was advertised for sale, he was entitled to recover the amount so paid from the mortgagor under Sec. 69 of the Contract Act. Applying the same principle, it has been urged that in the instant case, therefore, it was not necessary for the mortgagee to have waited till a rent suit was instituted and a rent decree was obtained by the landlord. In Narayanaswami Gounder V/s. Perumal Chettiar, AIR 1953 Mad 720 , Satyanarayana Rao and Krishnaswami Nayudu, JJ. (at page 722) while interpreting the provisions contained in Sections 72 and 76 of the Act observed that Section 76 did not apply to that case as there was a contract to the contrary between the parties by which the mortgagors undertook to pay the municipal taxes. Their Lordships pointed out that, no doubt, ordinarily the mortgagee, who paid the amount, would be entitled to recover it from the mortgagors but he claimed a further right that he was entitled to add that amount to the mortgage money, which he could only do under Section 72 of the Act. Their Lordships further observed that under Section 72 (b) of the Act, as it stood before the amendment of 1929, payments made for the preservation of the mortgaged property from destruction, forfeiture or sale, by the mortgagee could be tacked on to the mortgage amount without further limitations. A new proviso was added to the section by which it required that there should be a prior notice before payment was made so as to treat as a necessary payment which could be added to the mortgage amount. Therefore, in the instant case, in my opinion, if there had been no stipulation in Exhibit B, the appellant was not entitled to any amount which he had paid towards arrear of rent to the landlord. Therefore, in the instant case, in my opinion, if there had been no stipulation in Exhibit B, the appellant was not entitled to any amount which he had paid towards arrear of rent to the landlord. In Joykrushna Mahapatra V/s. Radhakrushna Mahapatra, AIR 1934 Pat 433, James, J. held that unless there was some specific condition in the bond absolving the borrower from liability to repay the loan, he must be held liable on the implied covenant contained in his unconditional acknowledgment of the fact that he was taking a loan when the mortgagee made a payment of Rs. 244/- to save the property from sale; he was entitled to add that amount to the mortgage debt. 8. Exhibit B, the relevant portion of which I have quoted earlier, also mentions that the creditor had not made any enquiry regarding the title of the executants or regarding encumbrances etc., and it was only on the assurance given by the executants that the creditor had taken the bharna. Therefore, on the facts and in the circumstances of the present case, in my opinion, the appellant is entitled to be reimbursed of the sum of Rs. 292/9/-. He, is, however, not entitled to any interest on the said amount because there is no reliable evidence on the record to show that he had given any intimation to the mortgagors regarding the demand of rent made by the landlord. Probably, if he would have informed the mortgagors of the demand of rent by the landlord, they would themselves have paid the rent. The mortgagee has, therefore, not acted as a fair creditor. Accordingly, the defendant-appellant is entitled to set a further sum of Rupees 292/9/- only in addition to the sum of Rs. 400.00 as directed by the Court below and to that extent only the judgment and decree of the Court below are modified. 9. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part as indicated above and the plaintiffs-respondents are directed to deposit Rs. 292/9/- in the trial Court within three weeks from the date of communication of this order to them. There will be no order as to costs since there has been no opposition on behalf of the contesting respondents and none appeared at the time of the hearing of the appeal.