Judgment :- This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 012. 1998 of the Second Additional District Munsif, Pondicherry in O.P.No.5 of 1995, dismissing the Petition filed under Section 83 of the Transfer of Property Act. 2. The Petitioners case as projected in the Petition is as follows:- The Petition mentioned property – House bearing Door No.18 at Caziar Street, Pondicherry belonged to the Petitioner. She mortgaged the property to one Zaitouneby borrowing a sum of Rs.5,000/- from her and executed Usufructuary Mortgage Deed dated 27.01.1966. The Petitioner left India and resided at France. In the year 1970, the Petitioner sent money through the First Respondent – Nanou Mouhamed Ali. The First Respondent also paid and discharged the said Mortgage by payment of money to Zaithouneby. The First Respondent informed the Petitioner that he had duly discharged the Usufructuary Mortgage; but the First Respondent has not given any document to the Petitioner. When the Petitioner came to Pondicherry in March 1995, she found that the Second Respondent – Wife of the First Respondent is in possession of Petition mentioned property. While the First Respondent discharged the Usufructuary Mortgage, the First Respondent had fraudulently obtained a Made Over Mortgage Deed in his favour. Deed of Mortgage Made Over was executed on 16.07.1970. Stating that though Mortgagee has received Mortgage money, but has not executed necessary Discharge Deed, the Petitioner has filed Petition under Section 83 of the Transfer of Property Act (for short "T.P Act"). 3. The Second Respondent resisted the Application contending that she is in lawful possession of the property as per Registered Power Deed dated 110. 1970. The Trial Court dismissed the Petition as not maintainable finding that the Mortgage Deed was already discharged on 15.01.1970 and there is no subsisting Usufructuary Mortgage between the Petitioner and Zaitouneby. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has contended that the Trial Court has not taken into consideration the Made Over Mortgage Deed in favour of the First Respondent. It was mainly contended that when the earlier Mortgage Deed in favour of Zaitouneby is not disputed and Made Over Mortgage Deed is also not disputed, the Court ought to have passed appropriate order under Sec.83 T.P.Act. 5. It was mainly contended that when the earlier Mortgage Deed in favour of Zaitouneby is not disputed and Made Over Mortgage Deed is also not disputed, the Court ought to have passed appropriate order under Sec.83 T.P.Act. 5. Learned counsel for the Second Respondent has submitted that Usufructuary Mortgage has already been discharged and when the Mortgage has already been redeemed, the Petitioner cannot ask for redemption of Mortgage for the second time. 6. There is no dispute that on 27.01.1966 Usufructuary Mortgage has been executed between the Petitioner and Zaitouneby for a sum of Rs.5,000/-and Petition mentioned property has been mortgaged in favour of Zaitouneby. There is no dispute that mortgage was already discharged on 15.01.1970 and the Petitioner herself has filed Original Mortgage Deed (Original Discharge Mortgage Deed). According to the Petitioner, the First Respondent cheated her by taking a Made Over Mortgage Deed from Zaitouneby and on that ground, the Petitioner seeks to deposit the amount in the Petition filed under Section 83 T.P.Act. 7. In the context of rival claim of the parties, can the Petitioner invoke the summary procedure for redemption under Section 83 of T.P.Act is the question arising for consideration in this Revision Petition. 8. The Mortgagor, after the Mortgage money has become due and before his right to redeem has become barred, may either: - pay or tender at the appropriate time and place the amount due on the Mortgage under Section 60; or deposit the amount due on the Mortgage under Section 83; or sue for redemption under Section 91 of T.P.Act. 9. Sec.83 of T.P.Act provides a summary procedure for redemption and the Petition is not a suit. The function of the Court being ministerial and hence, it is not for the Court to ascertain the amount due on the Mortgage or the sufficiency of the deposit or to decide the rival claims of contending Mortgagees. Therefore, this summary procedure under Sec.83 T.P.Act is not applicable to contentious cases. .10. In the Petition under Sec.83 T.P.Act, Mortgagor should make the deposit on account of the person, whom he alleges to be the Mortgagee. If the Mortgagee is willing to accept the deposit and returns the Mortgage Deed, the Court would pay him the money. Otherwise, the deposit should be returned to the Mortgagor and the parties are to be referred to a regular suit. If the Mortgagee is willing to accept the deposit and returns the Mortgage Deed, the Court would pay him the money. Otherwise, the deposit should be returned to the Mortgagor and the parties are to be referred to a regular suit. Therefore, under Sec.83 T.P.Act, apart from deposit of the money, the Mortgagee should also express his willingness to receive the amount. Thus, Sec.83 T.P.Act deals with the right to deposit the money and not the right to redeem. Where the Mortgagee refuses to accept the amount, the Mortgagor should institute a suit for redemption. 11. In this case, several contentious points are raised. As noted earlier, Mortgage was already discharged and there was no subsisting Mortgage between the Petitioner and Zaitouneby. The Second Respondent claims to be in possession of the property pursuant to Power of Attorney executed by the First Respondent. There seems to be interse dispute between the Petitioner and the First Respondent, who remains exparte. For the sake of arguments, even if we accept the case of the Petitioner that Zaitouneby has Made Over Mortgage Deed in favour of the First Respondent, at the most the First Respondent could only be the Mortgagee. The First Respondent – Mortgagee and the Second Respondent, who is claiming through the First Respondent are not willing to receive the amount deposited by the Petitioner. The procedure under Sec.83 T.P.Act being a summary procedure, such contentious issues between the parties cannot be gone into in the Petition filed under Sec.83 T.P.Act. 12. Third Paragraph of Sec.83 T.P.Act interalia provides that where the Mortgagee is in possession of the Mortgaged property, the Court before paying to him the amount so deposited may direct him deliver possession thereof to the Mortgagor. Under this provision, the Court can direct delivery of possession only if possession is found to be derived from Mortgage and not in any other capacity. As noted earlier, the Second Respondent claims to be in possession pursuant to a Power of Attorney executed in her favour by the First Respondent. The question whether the Second Respondents possession operate independent of the Mortgage has to be gone into by an elaborate Enquiry, which cannot be enquired in the summary procedure under Sec.83 T.P.Act. .13. The Trial Court simply dismissed the Petition as not maintainable, observing that the Petitioner is not entitled to any relief. The question whether the Second Respondents possession operate independent of the Mortgage has to be gone into by an elaborate Enquiry, which cannot be enquired in the summary procedure under Sec.83 T.P.Act. .13. The Trial Court simply dismissed the Petition as not maintainable, observing that the Petitioner is not entitled to any relief. The Trial Court ought to have referred the parties to a regular suit for appropriate remedy. The Petition filed by the Petitioner under Sec.83 T.P.Act is not maintainable. 14. In the result, the Impugned Order dated 012. 1998 of the Second Additional District Munsif, Pondicherry in O.P.No.5 of 1995 is confirmed and this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No Costs. However, it is ordered that the Petitioner is at liberty to file Civil Suit for appropriate remedy, if she is so advised. In computing the period of limitation for any suit, the time during which the Plaintiff has been prosecuting the Petition under Sec.83 T.P.Act shall be excluded as per Sec.14 of the Limitation Act.