JUDGMENT

Campbell, J. - This first appeal is the result of a suit under Section 12, Punjab Act II of 1913. The mortgagors, in a certain transaction to be described presently, applied for redemption to the Collector and obtained a decision that the mortgage could be redeemed on payment to the mortgagee Khota Ram, of Rs. 570. Khota Earn has sued for a declaration that there is a further charge on the land mortgaged of Rs. 5,015 and that there can be no redemption without payment of this amount. There was a prayer in the alternative for possession if it be found that he (the mortgagee) is not in possession, but the fact of the mortgagee's possession is now conceded.

2. The mortgage was entered into on the 26th July 1895 by registered deed for an area of 214 kanals 7 marlas. The mortgage price was Rs. 560, and the conditions were that the mortgagors should remain in possession and should pay interest yearly in the form of a certain quantity of grain on default of any year's interest the mortgagee was to be empowered to take possession and thenceforth payment of interest should cease. The term of mortgage was four years after which the mortgagors were to redeem on payment of the mortgage-money in the month of Har. Then follow in the deed two sentences which are important. The first is this:

Compound intorest shall be charged on the unpaid amount of interest at 25 per cent, per annum, and the same shall be paid by the mortgagors to the mortgagee along with the aforesaid mortgage-money.

3. The other is the following which comes a little lower down:

The aforesaid mortgaged lands and the persons of the mortgagors shall both be liable for payment of this debt.

4. On the 27th June 1893 a further advance of Rs. 10 was made to Charagh, one of the mortgagors, by Khota Ram and a document was drawn up reciting that interest was payable on this amount at Rs. 1-9-0 per cent per mensem, that principal and interest were payable on demand, that the debt should be considered as an additional charge on the lands mortgaged, that if those lands were redeemed, payment of the said principal and interest would be made along with the mortgage money due under the previous deed, and that other lands and the person of the debtor would be liable for the debt.

5. In 1902 the mortgagee, Khota Ram, sued for possession on the ground that the interest for that year had not been paid, but he further stated that previous instalments had not been paid in full. He was given a decree for possession and the Court expressly refused to go into the question of what was due for arrears of interest remarking that the plaintiff could seek his proper remedy in respect of anything outstanding. A concession was given to the mortgagors that should they pay the 1902 and 1903 instalments in Jeth, Sambat 1960 (May 1903) possession should not be delivered to the plaintiff. No payments, however, were made and Khota Ram obtained possession on the 3rd April 1904. He now asks for a declaration that the value of unpaid grain instalments with compound interest at 25 per cent up to the date of suit should be declared to be included in the mortgage charge. The calculation is set forth in the plaint, and shows that the balance of grain, due for each year from Sambats 1953 to 1961 has been taken in local weight measures of paths, choths, and topas. Compound interest at 25 per cent up to the date of suit has been calculated on each balance in terms of weight of grain. The total weight of grain due has thus been ascertained and a fixed rate of Rs. 3-8-8 per maund has been applied with the result of a sum of Rs. 4,981-4-0.

6. The mortgagors have been credited with small payments in each of the five years-1953 to 1957--but with nothing thereafter. Rs. 33-12-0 interest on the second advance of Rs. 10 brings the total up to Rs. 5,015.

7. Of the seven issues framed by the lower Court the first three relating to limitation, valuation of the suit and the possession of the plaintiff need not be considered since