Judgment :- 1. The only point for determination in this Second Appeal is as to whether a clause in a deed of mortgage, for redemption before the mortgage money has become due, is enforceable, and a suit will lie before the right of the mortgagee to enforce the mortgage has accrued. 2. The trial court decreed the suit relying on the terms of the mortgage deed Ext. Al in this case, providing for redemption even before the mortgage money has become due 3. The lower appellate court has reversed the decision of the trial court and has dismissed the suit holding that the mortgagor's right of redemption is co-extensive with the mortgagee's right to demand the mortgage money and the suit for redemption before the mortgage money has become due, is premature. It is against this that the plaintiff has come up in Second Appeal. 4. Under S.60 of the Transfer of Property Act the mortgagor has a right on payment or tender of the mortgage money to redeem the mortgage at any time after the principal money has become due. 5. Before its amendment by Act 20 of 1929 a mortgagor was entitled to redeem the mortgage at any time after the principal money has become "payable". The word 'payable' in S.60 was substituted by the word "due" by the amending Act 20 of 1929 making it clear thereby that the right to redeem is co-extensive with the right to enforce the mortgage. If the right of the mortgagee to enforce the mortgage and the right of the mortgagor to redeem are co-ext.-nsive under S.60 of the Transfer of Property Act, whether a provision in the deed of mortgage for redemption before the mortgage money has become due, is enforceable, is the question that requires determination in this case. 6. In the decision in Mt. Bakhtawar Begam v. Husain Khanum and another (AIR. 1914 P. C. 36) it was held at page 37: "Ordinarily, and in the absence of a special condition entitling the mortgagor to redeem during the term for which the mortgage is created, the right of redemption can only arise on the expiration of the specified period. But there is nothing in law to prevent the parties from making a provision that the mortgagor may discharge the debt within the specified period and take back the property. But there is nothing in law to prevent the parties from making a provision that the mortgagor may discharge the debt within the specified period and take back the property. Such a provision is usually to the advantage of the mortgagor" Even though this case was decided prior to the amendment of the Transfer of Property Act by Act 20 of 1929, the Privy Council, has recognised the principle that the right of redemption of the mortgagor and the right of the mortgagee to enforce the mortgage are co-extensive, but it is open to the parties to agree and make provision for redemption of the mortgage even before the mortgage money has become due. 7. In the decision in Satyavatamma v. Padmavatamma (A I.R. 1957 A. P. 30), Subba Rao C. J. after considering the decisions in A LR.1914 P.C. 36 and I.L.R. 23 Mad. 33 held at page 32, as follows: "After the amendment of S.60 by Act 20 of 1929, the mortgagor's right to redeem and that of the mortgagee's to enforce his right have become co-extensive. But as was held by the judicial Committee, it is subject to a specific contract between the parties." In Dhanammal v, Raju Gramani & Others (A I.R. 1954 Mad. 193), Krishna-swami Nayudu J. in Para.7 of the judgment quoting the above passage from AIR.1914 P.C. 36, stated that the decision of the Privy Council has been accepted by all the courts in subsequent decisions on the subject. 8. A Full Bench of the Madras High Court in Bhagvantulayya v. Venk-amdhora (A.I R.1941 Mad. 484) construed a provision in a deed of mortgage for payment of the mortgage money and interest by a particular date as a provision for payment on or before the said date, and proceeded on the basis that such a provision for redemption before the mortgage money becomes due is a valid option given to the mortgagor by agreement of parties 9.In Jodhiram Sah & Others v. Harihar Missir & Others (A.I.R.1958 Pat. 464) a learned judge of the Patna High Court after considering the decided cases on the point held in Para.9 as follows: "9. 464) a learned judge of the Patna High Court after considering the decided cases on the point held in Para.9 as follows: "9. On the authorities discussed above, in my opinion, there cannot but be one opinion on the question under consideration that subject to any contract to the contrary a mortgagor is not in law entitled to redeem a usufructuary mortgage before the expiry of the due date of payment and the question of such a right by way of equitable relief does not arise in the face of the clear provision of law embodied in S.60 of the Transfer of Property Act." The learned judge has taken the view that the principle in S.60 of the Transfer of Property Act that the right of the mortgagor to redeem and the right of the mortgagee to foreclose are co-extensive and are subject to any contract to the contrary between the parties. 10. A Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Jalappa v. Narasimha Setty & Others (AIR. 1963 And. P. 420), after referring to the observations of the Privy Council in AIR. 1914 P. C. 36 quoted above, stated in Para.24 of its judgment as follows: "24. The aforesaid observation of the learned judge lends support to the view that the mortgage could be redeemed before the period stipulated by consent of parties." 11. The relevant provision of Ext. Al mortgage in the present case is quoted in Para.6 of the judgment of the lower appellate court. The document expressly authorises the mortgagor to redeem within ten years from the date of execution of the document and the right of sale of the mortgages to enforce the mortgage accrues after the aforesaid period of ten years. Ext. Al is dated 26-3-1965. The suit for redemption was filed on 18-12-1973 within the period often years mentioned in the document. On the terms of the document there can hardly be any doubt that the mortgage money becomes due only after the period of ten years when only the mortgagee can enforce the mortgage. 12. From the decisions discussed above, it is clear that a provision in a deed of mortgage for redemption even before the mortgage money has become due is perfectly valid and enforceable. 13. S.60 of the Transfer of Property Act enables the mortgagor to redeem the mortgage when the mortgage money becomes due. 12. From the decisions discussed above, it is clear that a provision in a deed of mortgage for redemption even before the mortgage money has become due is perfectly valid and enforceable. 13. S.60 of the Transfer of Property Act enables the mortgagor to redeem the mortgage when the mortgage money becomes due. The mortgage money would become due when the mortgagee's right to enforce the mortgage accrues. The Section does not however inhibit the parties from agreeing for earlier redemption even before the mortgage money has become due. 14. Learned Counsel for the respondent relies on the decision in Ganga Dhar v. Shankar Lal & Others (AIR. 1958 SC. 770), for the proposition that the mortgagor's right to redeem accrues under S.60 of the Transfer of Property Act only when the principal money under the mortgage has become due. The Supreme Court in Para.4 of its judgment accepts the dictum in AIR 1914 PC. 36 that "ordinarily and in the absence of a special condition 'entitling the mortgagor to redeem during the term for which the mortgage is created, the right of redemption can only arise on the expiration of the specified period". In the case before the Supreme Court the term of the mortgage was for 85 years, and there was no stipulation entitling the mortgagor to redeem during that term. In Para.18 of the judgment it is stated: "18. It is said that the mortgage instrument itself indicates that the bargain is hard, for, while the mortgagor cannot redeem for eighty five years, the mortgagee is free to demand payment of his dues at any time he likes. This contention is plainly fallacious. There is nothing in the mortgage instrument permitting the mortgagee to demand any money, and it is well settled that the mortgagee's right to enforce the mortgage and the mortgagor's right to redeem are co-extensive." As is clear from the judgment, the Supreme Court was considering a case where there was no agreement for an earlier redemption of the mortgage before the mortgage money becomes due. The Supreme Court has approved in Para.4 of its judgment the dictum of the Privy Council in AIR. 1914 PC. 36 that the right of the mortgagor to redeem and of the mortgagee to enforce the mortgage are co-extensive, subject to the special conditions for earlier redemption to which the parties may agree. 8. The Supreme Court has approved in Para.4 of its judgment the dictum of the Privy Council in AIR. 1914 PC. 36 that the right of the mortgagor to redeem and of the mortgagee to enforce the mortgage are co-extensive, subject to the special conditions for earlier redemption to which the parties may agree. 8. Reliance is next placed on the decision of Raghavan J. (as be then was) in Krishnamma v. Parukutty Amma (1964 KLT.153). The learned judge observed: "I am of opinion, that the right to redeem comes into existence when the mortgage money becomes due; and if that happened prior to the date on which the Transfer of Property Act became applicable, the law existing then regarding the right of redemption must apply; and the subsequent fact of S.60 becoming applicable cannot alter the nature of the right of redemption that already vested in the party" The learned judge was considering the question as to whether the suit was defective as one for partial redemption and it was held that the mortgage being one created before the Transfer of Property Act was extended to the Travancore area S.60 of the Act does not apply and the suit was not defective as one for partial redemption. It was in that context that the learned judge made the observation quoted above. No such question as to the right of the mortgagor to redeem even before the mortgage-money has become due on the basis of a specific provision in the deed of mortgage arose in the case before the learned judge. The decision in 1964 KLT.143 is not an authority for the proposition urged by the learned Counsel that even in spite of a specific provision for earlier redemption in the deed of mortgage the mortgagor can enforce his right of redemption only after the mortgage money has become due. 15. As adverted to earlier, there is clear provision in Ext. Al authorising the mortgagor to redeem the mortgage before the principal money under the mortgage has become due. Such a provision in the document is perfectly valid and the plaintiff is entitled to sue for redemption on the strength of the specific clause in the deed of mortgage. The lower appellate court was wrong in dismissing the suit as premature. Al authorising the mortgagor to redeem the mortgage before the principal money under the mortgage has become due. Such a provision in the document is perfectly valid and the plaintiff is entitled to sue for redemption on the strength of the specific clause in the deed of mortgage. The lower appellate court was wrong in dismissing the suit as premature. The judgment and decree of the lower appellate court are set aside and the decree of the trial court is restored. The Second Appeal is allowed. There will be no order as to costs. Allowed. \