JUDGMENT : KNOX, J. 1. This appeal arises out of execution proceedings. The decree-holder, who has obtained a money decree, seeks, in satisfaction of his decree, the sale of certain property mortgaged to him. The courts below have disallowed the application on the ground that he cannot bring this property, which is hypothecated to him, to sale in execution of the decree otherwise than by instituting a suit under section 67 of the Transfer of Property Act. They cite, as an authority, section 99 of the Transfer of Property Act, and the case of Aubhoyessury Dabee v. Gouri Sunkur Panday, [1895] I.L.R., 22 Cal., 859. The learned vakil for the appellant tries to distinguish this case from the Calcutta case by contending that he has already instituted a suit under section 67, and section 99 therefore does not stand in his way. 2. It is true that he did institute a suit under section 67 and that the decree he seeks to enforce sprang from that suit, but without waiting to have that suit determined by the Court, he entered into a compromise with the defendants and consented to the passing in his favour of a money decree. In that money decree the property originally hypothecated to him was set out as being charged under the decree, but, all the same, the decree, with which he remained content, and for the satisfaction of which he now taken out proceedings, is nothing but a money decree. Section 99 is in very general terms and I do not see that the appellant has made out a case which falls outside these terms. This being so he is not entitled to bring the property to sale otherwise than by instituting a suit under section 67 upon his decree. The appeal is dismissed with costs including fees on the higher scale.