Arthur Strachey, C J -
(1.) This is a suit by the mortgagee under a mortgage for fifteen years, executed on the 12 November 1889, to enforce against the mortgagor and his vendee of the mortgaged property, a covenant for preemption, alleged to be contained in the mortgage-deed. Certain lessees from the mortgagor were also made defendants. The Court below has dismissed the suit upon two grounds--first, that the covenant in question does not give any right of pre-emption to the mortgagee and is unenforceable at law, because, in the opinion of the Court, it is void for uncertainty; secondly, that the covenant was without consideration. Against this decision the plaintiff has appealed to this Court.
(2.) Now the deed of mortgage recites that the mortgagors have already sold to the mortgagee a 4-anna share in the village of Rampur. The mortgage is a mortgage of another 9 annas 3 pie share in the same village. The covenant in question is as follows: "If we the executants stand in need of making an absolute transfer of the mortgaged share, we shall transfer it absolutely to the said Goshain at the same rate of sale-consideration at which we have sold the 4annas share; and if we transfer it to any other person, such transfer made by us shall be deemed invalid and wrong, as against the conditions set forth in this instrument." Although the word "pre-emption" is not used, and although it is not expressly stated that before transferring to any other person the property must be offered to the mortgagee at the price specified, I think there cannot be any doubt that that is the substantial meaning of the covenant. It cannot possibly mean that if the property were offered to the plaintiff at that price and were refused by him, the mortgagor could not transfer it to any other person. If that view is correct, then the covenant means that the plaintiff is to have an option of purchase at the price specified, and that any transfer to a third person, without first offering it to the plaintiff, is to be deemed invalid as against him. That is pre-emption and nothing else, and the Court was wrong in holding that the covenant was not one for preemption. I think also that the Court is wrong in holding that the agreement was void for uncertainty. It has, I think, a perfectly definite meaning, and that is the meaning which 1 have just stated. I think also that the Court was wrong in holding that the agreement was without consideration. There is one single and entire consideration for the mortgage-deed. The consideration for the mortgage, and for all the mortgagor's covenants, is the loan,--the advance made by the mortgagee. It follows that both the preliminary grounds upon which the Court below dismissed the suit, are wrong.
(3.) The defendant, however, seeks to uphold the decision upon two other grounds. The first is, that the stipulation of the covenant was for a collateral advantage to the mortgagee, and was therefore void according to the English authorities relating to the principle that a mortgagee is not entitled to the benefit of any stipulation contained in the instrument of mortgage for any collateral advantage, or to anything more than the security for payment of his principal, interest and costs, The answer to that contention is first, that no such doctrine is to be found in the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, which in this country governs the relations of mortgagor and mortgagee; and, secondly, that the latest English authorities show that the rule about collateral advantage is no longer recognized in England in the sense and to the extent supposed in some of the earlier cases, and that provided two conditions are secured, a mortgagee may at the time of the advance and as a term of it stipulate for a collateral advantage. The two conditions are, first, that the bargain is not an unconscionable bargain, and not the result of improper pressure, unfair dealing, or undue influence; secondly, that the right of redemption is not taken away or fettered. That is in substance the effect of the two latest cases on the subject decided by the Court of Appeal, Biggs V/s. Hoddinott (1899) 2 Ch. 307, and Santley V/s. Wilde (1899) 2 Ch. 474.;