Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. The first question that arises is, whether the plaintiff is entitled, as the Subordinate Judge has found, to make a deposit of the whole mortgage debt notwithstanding that the mortgagees have become the owners of part of the mortgaged property. On this question, I think the plaintiff was entitled to do so under the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act. He was undoubtedly a person entitled under Section 91 of the Transfer of Property Act to sue for redemption and consequently come within the words "or any other person entitled to institute such suit" in Section 83 so as to entitle him to make a deposit under that section. These statutory rights are not taken away by the recognition in Section 60 of the right of partial redemption where the mortgagee has become the owner of part of the mortgaged property. It was no doubt held in Mamu v. Kuttu (1883) I.L.R. 6 Mad. 61 that where the mortgagee had acquired a part of the mortgaged property, the mortgagor could not even sue for redemption until he had obtained a decree for partition, but this decision was before the Transfer of Property Act and even then was of very questionable authority for reasons which will appear later.