JUDGMENT : BURKITT, J. The suit in this case was brought to recover a sum of Rs. 14,000, a loan advanced by the plaintiff, Tufail Fatima, to one Uma Shankar, and as security for the loan, were mortgaged eight villages to the plaintiff of those eight villages two—Sarai Arjun and Khera Buzurg—were already mortgaged to one Jiwan Ram to secure a sum of about Rs. 2,000. Jiwan Ram had instituted a suit upon his mortgage and obtained a decree for sale and also an order absolute for sale. Subsequently to these proceedings the plaintiff, Musammat Tufail Fatima, advanced the sum of Rs. 14,000 to Uma Shankar, on the mortgage of eight villages as mentioned above. Of this sum, Rs. 2,000. was paid in cash to the mortgagor and the Remainder of the amount was left with the plaintiff to pay off various creditors of Uma Shankari Amongst other creditors, the plaintiff, at the request of Uma Shankar, the mortgagor, paid off the amount due to Jiwan Ram upon his mortgage decree. The plaintiff has now instituted a suit to recover the sum of Rs. 14,000, lent to Uma Shankar. She has obtained a decree for most of her claim. But as regards the amount used to pay off the mortgage debt due to Jiwan Ram, the court below has refused her a decree. That refusal is founded, according to the lower court, upon the decision, in the case of Bansidhar v. Gaya Prasad, [1901] I.L.R., 24 All., 179. In our opinion that case does not govern the one now before us. The facts are by no means similar. 2. We have in the present case a prior mortgage discharged at the request of the mortgagor by the plaintiff as the mortgagor's agent. It was not in the power of the plaintiff to dictate to the mortgagor the manner in which he should apply the Rs. 14,000 which was admittedly paid to him. 2. We have in the present case a prior mortgage discharged at the request of the mortgagor by the plaintiff as the mortgagor's agent. It was not in the power of the plaintiff to dictate to the mortgagor the manner in which he should apply the Rs. 14,000 which was admittedly paid to him. If the, mortgagor chose to apply a part of the amount in paying off Jiwan Ram's decree and sent the amount to Jiwan Ram through the plaintiff, that did not constitute a tender by the plaintiff to Jiwan Ram of the amount of his prior encumbrance within the meaning of section 74 of Act No. IV of 1882, Such being the case, we see no reason why the plaintiff should be driven to the cumbrous procedure of partially recovering his loan by executing discharged decree formerly held by Jiwan Ram, and as to the remainder of the loan, by instituting a separate suit upon his own mortgage. “We think that the plaintiff can in this suit recover that portion of the loan which Uma Shankar used to discharge Jiwan Ram's decree. We allow this appeal with costs against the answering respondents—Kalka Prasad and Ram Niwas. We discharge so much of the decree of lower court as dismisses the plaintiffs claim to recover Rs. 5,541-10-0 by sate of the villages-Saraj Arjun and Khera Buzurg. We find the plaintiff entitled to recover Rs. 5,541-10-0 by sale of the said two villages, and decree and order that if this amount, with the costs of this appeal and proportionate costs of the suit, together with future interest, at six per cent per annum, up” to the date of payment, be not paid on or before the 1st of April next, the said two villages or a sufficient part thereof be sold to recover the additional amount now decreed.