Doctrine of election governs mortgage redemption, with redemption conditional on full lump-sum payment for improvements and principal.

A mortgagor who accepted and acted upon the benefit of a later mortgage arrangement was held to have adopted its burdens as well, so the doctrine of election applied and the 1/4th share remained redeemable; the redemption claim was therefore not barred by limitation. On accounting, redemption was contractually conditional on payment of the principal and compensation for improvements in a lump sum, so mesne profits could not be awarded on the basis adopted below. The mortgagors were instead entitled to interest on the amount deposited until possession was delivered, with accounts adjusted accordingly.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the mortgagors' right to redeem the 1/4th share was barred by limitation, or whether Kunhi Pakki's conduct and later documents attracted the doctrine of election so that the share remained redeemable from the later stipulated date; (ii) whether mesne profits could be awarded against the mortgagees before the mortgagors paid the full redemption amount including compensation for improvements.

Issue (i): Whether the mortgagors' right to redeem the 1/4th share was barred by limitation, or whether Kunhi Pakki's conduct and later documents attracted the doctrine of election so that the share remained redeemable from the later stipulated date.

Analysis: A minor who was not represented in the later agreement was not directly bound by it, and limitation could not be extended merely by treating the later deed as an acknowledgment. But the decisive question was whether the mortgagor's successor had, by subsequent dealings, accepted the benefit of the later arrangement and adopted its terms. The later mortgage and related documents showed that the property was dealt with on the footing that the earlier mortgage had been converted into a mortgage for a fixed term, and that the benefits and burdens of the later arrangement were treated as governing the whole share.

Conclusion: The doctrine of election was properly applied, and the redemption claim on the 1/4th share was not barred.

Issue (ii): Whether mesne profits could be awarded against the mortgagees before the mortgagors paid the full redemption amount including compensation for improvements.

Analysis: The contract required redemption only on payment of the principal and compensation for improvements in a lump sum. Since the amount due for improvements was increased on appeal, the earlier deposit did not satisfy the contractual condition for redemption. The mortgagees could not at once retain possession and also be denied the benefit of the amount payable to them; equitable adjustment required interest on the amount deposited by the mortgagors until delivery of possession, with accounts to be adjusted accordingly.

Conclusion: Mesne profits could not be awarded on the basis adopted below, and interest on the deposited redemption amount was directed in adjustment.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only to a limited extent on the question of accounting and mesne profits, while the principal holding on redeemability and limitation was affirmed against the appellants.

Ratio Decidendi: A party who accepts and acts upon the benefit of an instrument must accept its burdens as well, and where redemption is contractually conditioned upon payment of principal and improvements in a lump sum, the mortgagor cannot claim possession or mesne profits until that condition is fully satisfied.

---