Curgenven, J.

1. The appellant is the widow of one Musaku Rowthen, against whom the respondent obtained a money decree in 1919. The judgment-debtor died in 1920, and the appellant was brought on as his legal repesentative. In 1922 the decree-holder attached an othi or usufructuary mortgage interest which had been held by the judgment-debtor upon a property the equity of redemption of which had been sold by the mortgagor to the appellant in 1906; so that, at the time of the attachment, both the mortgage interest (if it still subsisted) and the equity of redemption vested in the appellant. The attachment, it is contended on the authority of Ramaswami Mooppun v. Srinivasa Iyengar [1916]39 Mad.389, should have been made, as of a debt, Under Order 21, Rule 46, Civil P.C., but in point of fact it was made, as of immovable property Under Rule 54 of that order. This error of procedure does not however, I think, affect the position. The othi interest was brought to sale and was purchased by the decree-holder. He then filed an application for delivery of possession to him of the mortgaged property. The District Munsif framed two issues, the first inquiring whether the othi debt had be