1. The facts of the case are correctly stated in paragraph 8 of the District Munsifs judgment.

2. The District Munsif, assuming that the plaintiff had a "decree for money" within the meaning of Section 295, Civil Procedure Code, still dismissed the suit on the ground that it was incapable of execution, except as against the mortgaged property at the time when the plaint property was sold at the instance of the first defendant.

2. The District Judge confirmed the District Munsifs decree for two reasons: firstly, because Section 295(c) in his opinion barred the plaintiffs decree, and, secondly, because the plaintiffs decree was not "a decree for money" within the meaning of Section 295, Civil Procedure Code.

3. The plaintiff appeals and we think with good reason. The District Judge is manifestly in error in supposing that clause (c) of Section 295 governs the case. That clause refers only to property sold "in execution of a decree ordering its sale for the discharge of an encumbrance thereon." In the present case the property sold by first defendant was not encumbered property, but other property of the judgment-debtor.

4. The plaintiff and defendant had respectively a first and