SWAMI, J, J. ( 1 ) THE appellants are defendants 1 to 3. Respondents 1 to 5 are the plaintiffs Respondent no. 6 is the 4th defendant. In this judgment, the parties will be referred to with reference to the position assigned to them in the trial Court. Defendants 1 to 3 have preferred this appeal against the judgment and decree dated 31-10-1986 passed by the additional Civil Judge, Hubli in O. S. No. 146 of 1980. ( 2 ) THE trial Court apart from other findings has also recorded a finding that clause 9 of the mortgage deed in so far it enables the mortgagees to continue in possession as tenants even after the redemption of the mortgage is a clog on the right of redemption and as such is not enforceable. The terms of the decree are as follows:"1) The suit of the plaintiff is decreed as under. 2) Preliminary decree be drawn as follows: (1) The plaintiffs are entitled to redeem the suit property mortgaged by them under Exp. l to the defendants 1 to 3 in respect of CTS Nos. 3560/336003601a and 3561 and 3562 (HDMC Nos. 32/1, 32/2,32/3, and 32/4) (2) Defendants 1 to 4 are directed to execute the registered reconveyance deed in favour of the plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 4 are directed to deliver the mortgage deed Ex. P. 1 after substituting it by a certified copy in Court. (3) Defendants 1 to 4 and 10 shall put plaintiffs in actual possession of the property which are lying in their possession, failing which the plaintiffs are entitled to actual possession of the properties by dispossessing defendants 1 to 4 and 10 from their possession. (4) The plaintiffs are entitled to nominal possession of the property which are in possession of defendants 5 to 9 and 11. (5) Plaintiffs are entitled to future mesne profits and a separate enquiry be held after the plaintiffs are put in posession of the property under 0. 20 R. 12 CPC; (6) The plaintiffs are entitled to recover costs from the defendants 1 to 4 only, (7) Defendants 1 to 4 are entitled to recover Rs. (5) Plaintiffs are entitled to future mesne profits and a separate enquiry be held after the plaintiffs are put in posession of the property under 0. 20 R. 12 CPC; (6) The plaintiffs are entitled to recover costs from the defendants 1 to 4 only, (7) Defendants 1 to 4 are entitled to recover Rs. 2000/- towards the improvements made in the building on payment of court fee on this amount under Section 32 (2) of the Karnataka Court Fees and suits Valuation Act, on their W. S. " ( 3 ) DEFENDANTS 1 to 3 are the mortgagees. Plaintiffs 1 to 5 are the mortgagors. The suit properties in question were mortgaged to defendants 1 to 3 by the plaintiffs on 21st april, 1965 under a registered deed of possessory mortgage marked as Ex. P. 1 for a sum of Rs. 25,000/ -. ( 4 ) SRI V. Tarakaram, learned Counsel for defendants 1 to 3 has advanced one and the only contention. It is contended that as per clause 9 of the deed of mortgage even after redemption of mortgage the mortgagees are entitled to continue in possession as tenants and therefore the decree for possession passed by the trial Court pursuant to redemption of mortgage is illegal. The learned counsel submits that the trial Court is not justified in holding that clause 9 of the deed of mortgage amounts to clog on the right of redemption and it is unreasonable and unconscionable, therefore, it is void and unenforceable in law. ( 5 ) AFTER the expiry of the period of 15 years, the plaintiffs called upon the defendants 1 to 3 to receive the mortgage amount and redeem the mortgage and hand over possession of the mortgaged properties, defendants 1 to 3 did not comply with it and gave a reply dated 26-5-1980 as per Ex. P. 2 stating that as per the terms of clause 9 of the deed of mortgage they are entitled to be continued as tenants even after the redemption of mortgage and as such they are to be continued as tenants and they have no objection for redeeming the mortgage. P. 2 stating that as per the terms of clause 9 of the deed of mortgage they are entitled to be continued as tenants even after the redemption of mortgage and as such they are to be continued as tenants and they have no objection for redeeming the mortgage. ( 6 ) IN the light of the contentions urged, the point that arises for consideration in this appeal is as to whether clause 9 of the mortgage gives an unqualified right to the defendants 1 to 3 mortgagees to continue as tenants even after the redemption of mortgage. If so whether such a term is a clog on the right of redemption and as such is not enforceable? ( 7 ) CLAUSE 9 of the mortgage deed reads thus:"on repayment of Rs. 25,000/- the mortgagees at the cost of mortgagors shall redeliver the mortgaged properties to the mortgagors of the first part free from encumbrances; and the mortgagees of the second part shall be allowed to continue if necessary as tenants on reasonable rent after the expiry of 15 years. ( 8 ) SRI. Tarakaram, learned Counsel for defendants 1 to 3 the appellants contends that clause 9 cannot at all be regarded as a clog on the right of redemption as it only enables the mortgagees to continue as tenants of the mortgaged properties on payment of reasonable rent on the expiry of the period of 15 years stipulated in the mortgaged deed; that leasing of the properties is one of the accepted and normal modes of enjoying and exercising the right of ownership, there is nothing wrong with clause 9, as such, defendants 1 to 3 - the appellants are entitled to continue in possession of the mortgaged properties tenants even after redemption of the mortgage. ( 9 ) CLAUSE 9 neither reserves the rent payable by defendants 1 to3 if they are to continue in possession of the mortgaged properties, as tenants evenafter redemption, nor specifies the period of lease. Thus, clause 9 does not stipulate essential ingridients of a lease. It is vague in this regard. However, it is not necessary to go into this aspect of matter. We shall first examine clause 9 on the basis that it gives an unqualified right to defendants 1 to 3 - mortgagees to continue in possession of the mortgaged properties as tenants evenafter redemption of the mortgage. It is vague in this regard. However, it is not necessary to go into this aspect of matter. We shall first examine clause 9 on the basis that it gives an unqualified right to defendants 1 to 3 - mortgagees to continue in possession of the mortgaged properties as tenants evenafter redemption of the mortgage. "it has always been anxious to protect the right of redemption. It has always been the attempt not to recognise a condition in the mortgage deed which has the effect of placing fetter on the right of redemption. In this connection, it is very relevant to notice the words "in the absence of any contract to the contrary" which are found in many of the sections of the Transfer of Property Act (for short the T. P. Act) are not found in Section 60 of the T. P. Act. When the legislature has enacted Section 60 of the T. P. Act in unqualified terms, the Courts have endeavoured and must endeavour to relieve the mortgagors from a condition in the mortgage deed which fetters their right of redemption by refusing to recognise and enforce it or by declare it as void. Right of redemption is of the very nature, and essence of the mortgage. It is inherent in the mortgage. To put it axiomatically "once mortgage always a mortgage". This maxim is further reinforced by Lord Davey in Noakes v Rice (1902) AC 24 by adding to it the words "and nothing but a mortgage". Of course, we are aware that still there are some decisions which have adopted the line of reasoning that even- though Section 60 of the T. P. Act is unqualified in its terms, but nothing prevents the parties to agree to the contrary. Whether a particular term in the contract should be regarded as a clog on the right of redemption depends upon the terms of the mortgage and the circumstances as they existed at the time of the execution of the mortgage. No hard and fast rule can be laid down. Whether a particular term in the contract should be regarded as a clog on the right of redemption depends upon the terms of the mortgage and the circumstances as they existed at the time of the execution of the mortgage. No hard and fast rule can be laid down. If on taking into consideration the circumstances that existed at the time of 'execution of the mortgage and all the terms of the mortgage deed, the Court is able fo come to the conclusion that a particular covenant is undoubtedly hard and unconscionable andhas the effect of nullifying the right of redemption or restricts the exercise of right of redemption in such manner as practically to deny it. Such a covenant can be regarded as a clog on the right of redemption and as such it has to be ignored and the party has to be relieved from it. As far as the condition in a mortgage deed which enables the mortgagee to continue in possession of the mortgaged property evenafter redemption as a permanent lessee, is concerned, it is a settled position in law in India that such a condition is invalid and unenforceable. "93. In GANGA DHAR v SHANKARLAL AND OTHERS, (AIR 1958 SC P. 770), the Supreme Court has observed thus:"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 right of redemption, therefore, cannot be taken away. The Courts will ignore any contract the effect of which is to deprive the mortgagor of his right of redemption the mortgage. The rule against clogs on the equity or redemption no doubt involves that the courts have the power to relieve a party from his bargain. If he has agreed to forfeit wholly his right to redeem in certain circumstances, that agreement will be avoided. But the Courts have gone beyond this. They have also relieved mortgagors from bargains whereby the right to redeem has not been taken away but restricted. The reason then justifying the Court's power to relieve a mortgagor from the effects of his bargain is its want of conscience. But the Courts have gone beyond this. They have also relieved mortgagors from bargains whereby the right to redeem has not been taken away but restricted. The reason then justifying the Court's power to relieve a mortgagor from the effects of his bargain is its want of conscience. Putting it in more familiar language the Court's jurisdiction to relieve a mortgagor from his bargain depends on whether it was obtained by talcing advantage of any difficulty or embarrassment that he might have been in when he borrowed the moneys on the mortgage. Was the mortgagor oppressed? Was he imposed upon? If he was, then he may be entitled to relief. " ( 10 ) ON examining the terms of the mortgage deed, we find that all the terms are in favour of the mortgagees. The mortgagors are made to effect repairs immediately to the mortgaged properties to suit the business requirements of the mortgagees and in case they fail to effect repairs the mortgagees were at liberty to get it repaired and to recover the costs of such repairs from the mortgagors. The mortgagors were required to pay all the taxes of the mortgaged properties. The mortgagors were also made to fix rolling shutters to the shop, doors, stone slabs flooring and partition wall hi the ground floor within a fortnight in addition to the repairs, failing which the mortgagees were given liberty to get it done and recover the costs from the mortgagors. The mortgagors were not entitled to. claim any rent to the mortgaged properties given into the possession of the mortgagees and the mortgaged money had to carry no interest. From clause 7 of the mortgage deed, it is clear that the mortgaged properties were subjected of earlier mortgage. Thus, from the aforesaid terms of the mortgage deed it is clear that the mortgagees have tried to take advantage of the situation in which the mortgagors were placed at the time when they borrowed the money on the mortgage and imposed the terms in the deed which were wholly to the benefit of the mortgagees. This becomes further clear when we consider the extent of the properties mortgaged. This becomes further clear when we consider the extent of the properties mortgaged. The schedule to the deed of mortgage describes the mortgaged properties as follows: schedule OF PROPERTIES: all that building with ground floor and twp storeys above, together with right of way, privy and easement of right appurtenent to the properties mortgaged with possession, situated on Azad Road (Station Road) hubli, Dist. Dharwad in the jurisdiction of the Sub-Registrar, Hubli Taluk, bearing c. T. S. NO. 3560/3,3600,3601a - ward I, and measuring 183 Square yards and as all properties are together forming one whole and complete building, bounded by: to East - Municipal Road; to West - The property belonging to one srimati Divalibai; to North - Property of Balannavar Sullad; to South - Property of Sri. Balannavar sullad. " thus a vast extent of valuable properties situated in an important commercial city like hubli were mortgaged for a sum of Rs. 25,0007- only for a period of 15 years in the year 1965. Clause 9 read in the background of the other terms of the mortgage and the extent of the mortgaged properties in so far it enables the mortgagees to continue as tenants evenafter the redemption of themortgage, is unconscionable and it is undoubtedly a clog on the right of redemption. It comes in the way of the mortgagors to secure possession of the mortgaged properties evenafter redemption. The mort- gaged properties are situated in Hubli City and are governed by the Karnataka Rent control Act. On mortga- gees become the tenants on the redemption of the mortgage, the mortgagors will not be able to secure possession of the mortgaged properties except in accordance with the provisions of the Karnataka Rent Control Act. The mortgagors may or may not be able to secure possession under the provisions of the karnataka Rent Control Act as they would be required to make out a case for possession as per the provisions of the said act. The mortgagors may or may not be able to secure possession under the provisions of the karnataka Rent Control Act as they would be required to make out a case for possession as per the provisions of the said act. Thus, clause 9, if read as enabling the mortgagees to continue in possession of the mortgaged properties as tenants evenafter the redemption of the mortgage it is undoubtedly a clog on the right of redemption because it nullifies the right of redemption, in asmuchas, it deprives the mortgagors of their right to redeem the mortgage and secure possession of the mortgaged properties, and thereby it renders the right of redemption illusory and enables the mortgagees to remain in possession of the mortgaged properties beyond the period of, and after, the redemption of the mortgage. ( 11 ) IN GOVIND RAM AND ANOTHER v rajphul SINGH AND OTHERS (AIR 1973, Punjab and Haryana, P. 94); while considering the similar terms in the mortgage deed, it has been held thus:". . . . . . . . A long term provided in the mortgage deed, for redemption may not necessarily be a clog on equity of redemption but a collateral advantage, which goes beyond the period of redemption, is a clog and such a condition is invalid. A condition that after redemption the mortgagee should continue in possession as a permanent tenant has been held to be invalid in India. After coming into force of legislation providing security of tanancies in urban as well as rural areas, the agreement to retain property as tenants by the mortgagees after redemption is equally cumbersome and onerous. In case of commercial premises, the rent legislation in the State of Haryana provides that it cannot be got vacated even for personal requirements. The chances of vacation of such premises become vary bleak and the condition in mortgage deed to retain possession as a tenant after redemption is harsh and burdensome and amounts to a clog on equity of redemption. Such a clause cannot be enforced after the property has been redeemed. In my view, the decision of the learned Additional district Judge is correct on this issue and I affirm the same. "we are in agreement with the aforesaid view expressed in Govind Ram's case. Such a clause cannot be enforced after the property has been redeemed. In my view, the decision of the learned Additional district Judge is correct on this issue and I affirm the same. "we are in agreement with the aforesaid view expressed in Govind Ram's case. Accordingly, the contentions urged on behalf of defendants 1 to 3 (appellants) are liable to be rejected and the same are rejected. Accordingly, the point raised for determination is answered as follows: even if it is regarded that clause 9 enables the mortgagees (defendants 1 to 3) to remain hi possession of the mortgaged properties (suit properties) as tenants evenafter redemption of the mortgage, it operates as a clog on the right of redemption and as such it is void and unenforceable. ( 12 ) NO other contention is urged. ( 13 ) IN the view we take it is not necessary to consider whether clause 9 gives an unqualified right to the mortgagee (defendants 1 to 3) to continue in possession of the mortgaged properties as tenants evenafter redemption of the mortgage. ( 14 ) FOR the reasons stated above, we do not see any ground to interfere with the decree passed by the trial Court. Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. Appeal dismissed. --- *** --- .