JUDGMENT Prinsep and Stephen, JJ. - The Plaintiffs sue on a mortgage to obtain a decree for sale of the mortgaged property in order to realize the amount due. The Defendant No. 1 is the mortgagor and Defendant No. 2 holds a second mortgage. It appears that the Plaintiffs obtained a decree against the mortgagor on another debt and in execution of that decree sold the equity of redemption belonging to the mortgagor, bought the property themselves and obtained possession as auction-purchasers through the Court. 2. An objection was raised to these proceedings which, it was contended, were contrary to Section 99 of the Transfer of Property Act; and it was further contended that the proceedings in that suit and the sale to the Plaintiffs were null and void. The terms of Section 99 are clearly in favour of this contention and forbid a mortgagee in execution of a decree for the satisfaction of any claim, whether arising under the mortgage or not, from attaching the mortgaged property, or bringing it to sale otherwise than by a suit regularly brought u/s 67 of the Act. The possession obtained by the Plaintiffs was not as mortgagees, but as creditors who had obtained a decree for another debt. The Plaintiffs possession obtained in execution of that decree was therefore not in accordance with law. For this we find authority in the case of Durgayya v. Anantha ILR (1890) Mad. 74 in which we concur. We have also had cited before us the case of Sri Raja Papamma Rao v. Sri Vira Pratapa H.V. Ramachandra Razu ILR (1896) Mad. 249 : L.R. 23 IndAp 32. In that ease it was held by the High Court that the Plaintiff was put into possession in execution of a decree obtained on his mortgage. Their Lordships of the Privy Council, however, held that the mortgage did not give the mortgagee the right claimed and that, consequently, his possession was not a lawful possession so as to bar the right of the mortgagor to redeem. That suit was brought, by the mortgagors for possession after taking an account of the rents and profits realized by the mortgagees from the date of their obtaining possession in execution of their decree. That suit was brought, by the mortgagors for possession after taking an account of the rents and profits realized by the mortgagees from the date of their obtaining possession in execution of their decree. The question now before us, which relates to Section 99 of the Transfer of Property Act, consequently did not arise in that case, but it is an authority for showing that an account may be taken from a mortgagee, notwithstanding that he may have obtained possession otherwise than in execution of a decree properly obtained. 3. The District Judge in appeal has refused to allow the profits, realized by the mortgagees during the term of their possession in execution of their decree, to be taken into the account which he has ordered, although, by reason of Section 99 of the Transfer of Property Act, the decree by which the mortgagees obtained possession conferred no legal title. It is in respect of this order that appeals have been made separately both by the second mortgagee (Defendant No. 2) and by the mortgagor (Defendant No. 1). Both these appeals proceed on the same ground, except that in the appeal by the mortgagor an objection has been raised regarding the sum of Rs. 1,000, which was paid by the Plaintiffs, the auction-purchasers, of the equity of redemption to him. We are of opinion that in the account to be taken of the amount due on the mortgage to the Plaintiffs which is the first mortgage, the amount realized by them during the period of their possession, as purchasers under the decree obtained by them, should be set off against the amount due under their mortgage and that on the other hand the Plaintiffs-mortgagees are entitled to receive credit for the sum of Rs. 1,000 paid by them as purchasers to the mortgagor. It would be inequitable to allow the mortgagor to retain this money and at the same time to give him credit for the amount realized by the mortgagee during the possession which must be considered as an unlawful possession. The order of the District Judge is accordingly modified in respect of the manner in which the account should be taken. The Appellants are each entitled to receive their costs in their respective appeals.