Statutory right of redemption prevails over inconsistent mortgage possession clause; redemption suit was not premature.

A mortgage term allowing the mortgagee to remain in possession for twelve years could not suspend the mortgagor's statutory right of redemption under Section 60 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Even if the instrument were treated as an anomalous mortgage, the deed had to be read consistently with the Act, and any clause inconsistent with the right to redeem yielded to that statutory right. The redemption suit was therefore not premature. Accounts and the decree were to be framed in accordance with the mortgage terms only so far as they did not conflict with the right of redemption.

---

---

Issues: Whether the mortgagor's right to redeem was suspended by the mortgage clause allowing the mortgagee to remain in possession for twelve years, so that the redemption suit was premature.

Analysis: Mortgages are governed by the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and the right of redemption under Section 60 accrues when the principal money becomes payable. The mortgage deed could not, even if treated as an anomalous mortgage, be construed so as to defeat that statutory right. The clause granting possession to the mortgagee for twelve years could operate only consistently with the Act and not as a bar to redemption. The court also directed that the accounts and decree be framed in accordance with the mortgage terms so far as they did not conflict with the statutory right.

Conclusion: The mortgagor retained the right to redeem and the redemption claim was not barred as premature.

Ratio Decidendi: A contractual term in a mortgage cannot override the mortgagor's statutory right of redemption under Section 60 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and any inconsistent clause must yield to that right.

---