JUDGMENT : BURKITT, J. In this case the appellants, obtained a decree for redemption against Lokman Dass and others on the 23rd of December 1899, The decree directed the appellants to pay Rs. 6,000 into court as redemption money within 6 months from the date of the decree. On the 17th of January, 1900, the decree-holders deposited the Rs. 6000. When the decree-holders obtained their decree for redemption, they also obtained a decree for costs, to the amount of Rs. 641, against the judgment-debtors. Subsequently to the deposit of Rs. 6,000, the decree-holders attached Rs. 641, out of the Rs. 6,000 they had deposited in court, and they attached it in-execution of their decree for costs, We may notice here that the Subordinate Judge has throughout his entire judgment made a blunder upon this matter. He had said in several places that this attachment for costs was made after an appeal to the High Court had been instituted. But we find that such is not the case. The appeal to the High Court was not instituted until the 30th of March, 1900, whereas the attachment of Rs. 641 was made in the previous month. On appeal the decree of the lower court was affirmed and the plaintiffs, decree-holders, were given a further decree for costs, to the amount of Rs. 213-8-3. 2. To recover this amount in execution, the decree-holders made & further attachment upon the Rs. 6,000; and in execution of their two decrees for costs, recovered the amounts decreed to them, and finally in execution of their decree for redemption possession was delivered to them on the 8th of July, 1902. On the 4th of October, 1902, the mortgagees, respondents, here applied to the court below to have the property restored to them which had just been handed to the plaintiffs, decree-holders, on redemption. The ground of their application was that the decree-holders, had not paid in the amount sufficient to redeem the mortgage. They admitted that Rs. 6,000 had been paid in, but their contention was that by attaching the Rs. 641, the appellants had reduced the sum available to pay off the decree. Strange to say, the court below has accepted this contention, We are unable to follow the court in that, It is admitted that the judgment-debtors, respondents here, have obtained every farthing they were entitled to on redemption of their mortgage. 641, the appellants had reduced the sum available to pay off the decree. Strange to say, the court below has accepted this contention, We are unable to follow the court in that, It is admitted that the judgment-debtors, respondents here, have obtained every farthing they were entitled to on redemption of their mortgage. All they were entitled to, was Rs. 6,000 less the amounts of the successful decree-holders decrees for costs and that amount they have got. Whether the decree-holders were wise in paying in the whole of Rs. 6,000, and then attaching Rs. 641 for costs, or whether they ought to have paid Rs. 6000, less Rs. 641, is a matter as to which we say nothing. But the fact remains clear and undisputed that the judgment-debtors have got every farthing to which they were entitled. This being the case, why then the Subordinate Judge, on such flimsy ground, has turned the decree-holders out of the property they had just redeemed, we fail to comprehend. We think the order of the court below was wrong. We set it aside and direct that the property in question be restored to the decree-holders, appellants here. We give the appellants here, costs in this Court and in the lower court.