Short Note : It is not in dispute that defendant No.3 was the owner of the suit house and he mortgaged the house with the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 by registered mortgage deed dated 27-5-1958 for Rs. 1,500 and placed them in its possession. However, by registered sale deed dated 13-4-1960 the defendant No. 3 sold the suit house to Bindraban, father of the plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 5 and husband of plaintiff No.6 for Rs. 2,500. Bindraban died on 20-10-1963 and the plaintiffs on 5-8-1967 deposited the amount of Rs. 1,500 in the Court along with all application under section 83 of the Transfer of Property Act, for delivering possession of the house to the plaintiffs from the defendants Nos. 1 and 2, but the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 did not accept the amount and did not re-deliver possession of the house. The plaintiffs, therefore, filed this suit for redemption of the mortgage. The defendants Nos. 1 and 2 were the main contesting party in the suit and they submitted that the plaintiffs have no right to redeem the house inasmuch as per the mortgage deed it was clearly mentioned that unless the mortgage money was paid within seven years, it would be treated as sale. Held : It is true that the mortgage, Ex.P-1, executed by the defendant No.3 in favour of the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 stipulated that in case the, mortgage money is not paid within seven years, it would be treated as sale. It has been rightly pointed out by the Courts below that such a condition in the mortgage is a clog on equity of redemption and is unenforceable and is with no legal effect. There can be no quarrel with the legal proposition and the principle that once a mortgage is always a mortgage would apply to this case. It is now well settled that the rule against clogs on the equity of redemption is that a mortgage shall always be redeemable and a mortgagor's, right to redeem shall neither be taken away nor be limited by any contract between the parties. The Court will ignore any contract the effect of which is, to deprive the mortgagor of his right to redeem the mortgage. [Khan Bahadur v. Makhna, AIR 1930 PC 142 and Gangadhar v. Shankar Lal, AIR 1958 SC 770 ]. The Court will ignore any contract the effect of which is, to deprive the mortgagor of his right to redeem the mortgage. [Khan Bahadur v. Makhna, AIR 1930 PC 142 and Gangadhar v. Shankar Lal, AIR 1958 SC 770 ]. It is, therefore, clear that in spite of such a condition in the mortgage deed, the mortgagor was entitled to redeem the mortgage and the stipulation was void. AIR 1930 PC 142 & AIR 1958 SC 770 relied On. Appeal dismissed.