(i) any mortgagee other than a mortgagee by conditional sale or a mortgagee under an anomalous mortgage by the terms of which he is entitled to foreclose, to institute a suit for foreclosure, or
(ii) a usufructuary mortgagee as such or a mortgagee by conditional sale as such to institute a suit for sale; ".
Here you go. The other than only qualifies the right to foreclose.
Why do all articles/ blogs say that in case of Usufructuary Mortgage, the mortgagee's only remedy is the right of possession, whereas as per S. 67 of TOPA, a suit for sale can be instituted in usufructuary mortgage. S 67 reproduced below
"Nothing in this section shall be deemed-
(a) to authorize any mortgagee other than a mortgagee by conditional sale or a mortgagee under an anomalous mortgage by the terms of which he is entitled to foreclose, to institute a suit for foreclosure, or a usufructuary mortgagee as such or a mortgagee by conditional sale as such to institute a suit for sale; ".
(a) to authorize:
(i) any mortgagee other than a mortgagee by conditional sale or a mortgagee under an anomalous mortgage by the terms of which he is entitled to foreclose, to institute a suit for foreclosure, or
(ii) a usufructuary mortgagee as such or a mortgagee by conditional sale as such to institute a suit for sale; ".
Here you go. The other than only qualifies the right to foreclose.
The section says, Nothing in this section shall be deemed to authorize any mortgagee OTHER THAN.
READ THE OTHER THAN PART
"Nothing in this section shall be deemed(a) to authorize ... a usufructuary mortgagee as such
.. to institute a suit for sale"
Also, maybe revisit 58 and the definition of usufructuary mortgage.
"Nothing in this section shall be deemed-
(a) to authorize any mortgagee other than a mortgagee by conditional sale or a mortgagee under an anomalous mortgage by the terms of which he is entitled to foreclose, to institute a suit for foreclosure, or a usufructuary mortgagee as such or a mortgagee by conditional sale as such to institute a suit for sale; ".