Yahya Ali, J.

1. This appeal has to be dismissed on two short points. The learned District Judge found that the first loan, the land improvement loan, was fully discharged and had been closed before the sale of Suit No. 820 which took place on 8th February 1934. He was of the view that this land was wrongly sold for the balance of the agricultural loan which was still outstanding. He took that view apparently because he was of the opinion that it was only the land which constituted security for the loan that could be sold for the realization thereof. That view does not seem on an examination of the provisions of the Agriculturists Loans Act to be correct. Under Section 5 of that Act every loan made under that statute could be recovered from the person to whom the loan was made as if it as an arrear of land revenue; and the procedure for realizing arrears of rent is laid down in the Revenue Recovery Act. Section 5 of that Act provides that when-ever revenue may be in arrear, it shall be lawful for the Collector, or other officer empowered by the Collector in that behalf, to proceed to recover the arrear, together with interest and costs of process by the sale of the defaulter