JUDGMENT

Ba U, J - This appeal arises out of a suit tiled by the appellant for recovery of Rs. 1,800 alleged to be due as interest on the mortgage deed in suit. The deed was executed by the defendants-respondents on 17th January 1929. It provides for payment of the principal, Rs. 15,000 on 17th January 1935, and interest yearly. Now, the allegation of the plaintiff-appellant is that the defendants-respondents have paid interest due up to 17th January 1932, but failed to pay interest due from 18th January 1932, to 17th January 1933. By their written statement the defendants-respondents have raised various pleas, two of which are as follows:

(6) That the plaintiff is not entitled to file this suit without suing for the principal amount due on the mortgage mentioned in this suit.

(7) That according to the covenants in the mortgage deed the suit is not maintainable.

2. On these pleas the trial Court held that as a specific remedy--the remedy being to take possession of the mortgaged properties in case of default of payment the "amount secured"--was provided in the deed the suit, as framed, was not maintainable. The lower appellate Court held the same view and added:

The whole tenor of the document goes to show that both the principal and the interest were secured by the mortgage, and as a specific remedy is provided for non-payment of interest when it falls due, it can be properly inferred that the parties did not intend that the plaintiff should also exercise the remedy by way o? a separate suit for interest. In the case of a mortgage, such a remedy is not granted in spite of a personal covenant to pay interest, unless a suit for sale is filed, and the mortgaged property actually sold. In the absence of any specific provision to that effect it cannot be inferred that the parties intended that the plaintiff should have a right of suit if interest was in arrears.

3. Now there is no dispute that the, mortgage in question is an anomalous mortgage. It is a combination of both a simple and usufructuary mortgage. The rights and liabilities of the parties must therefore be determined by the terms of the contract as evidenced in: the mortgage deed; sea Section 98, T.P. Act. Do the terms show that in default of payment of either the principal or interest the only remedy open to the mortgagee is to enter upon and take possession of the mortgaged proper-ties? The relevant portion of the mortgage deed is as follows:

In consideration of the sum of Rs. 15,000 (fifteen thousand) only this day paid to the said Maung Aung Thein, Mg Pwa and Ma Shan by the said Chan Yin Seng...the said Maung Aung Thein, Mg Pwa and Ma Shan do hereby for themselves, their heirs, representatives and assigns grant, convey and confirm unto the said Ghan Yin Seng by way of simple mortgage all those pieces of paddy land measuring..., and the said mortgagee shall have full power to enter upon and quietly enjoy the said properties after default of payment of the amount hereby secured within the time hereinafter provided in that behalf...and the mortgagors hereby also covenant and agree with the said mortgagee, his heirs representatives that on 17th day of January 1935, will and truly pay to the said mortgagee his heirs, representatives and assigns the said sum of Rs. 15,000 (fifteen thousand) only with interest thereon at the rate of Ra. 12 (twelve) per cent per annum to be paid yearly and every, year until the said 17th day of January 1935.... And also that the said mortgagee his heirs, representatives and assigns shall have all the right power and remedies and privileges conferred upon the mortgagee by the Transfer of Property Act 4 of 1882.

4. And now what do the words "the amount hereby secured" mean? Do they mean "the principal and interest" or "only the principal"? Normally, the amount that is secured in a mortgage is the principal sum and interest due thereon. In the present case, reading the contents of the mortgage deed as a whole, it appears to my mind that the intention o