JUDGMENT : BANERJI, J. This appeal arises out of an application for execution of a simple decree for money obtained against the appellant by one Hargun who subsequently assigned it to the respondent, Manni Lal. The appellant had made a usufructuary mortgage of his property to Hargun. The decree, however, had no reference to the mortgage or to the debt secured by the mortgage. In execution of the decree, of which he was the assignee, the respondent sought to bring to sale the equity of redemption of the appellant in respect of the property of which Hargun was the usufructuary mortgagee. It was contended on behalf of the appellant that Manni Lal was not entitled to bring to sale the equity of redemption of the appellant, and reliance was placed upon the provisions of section 99 of Act No. IV of 1882. This objection found favour with the Court of first instance but it was overruled by the lower appellate Court. The same objection has been repeated before us. It may be that if Manni Lal had been the assignee of the rights of Hargun as mortgagee section 99 of Act No. IV of 1882 would have precluded him from seeking the sale of the mortgaged property in execution of the money decree of which he was the assignee. But it must be remembered that he did not acquire the rights which existed in Hargun under the mortgage to which we have referred above. 2. His position at present is not different from that of a third person who has obtained a simple decree for money against the mortgagor of Hargun and seeks to sell the equity of redemption of the mortgagor, There can be no doubt that on the application of a third person, who is not a mortgagor from the judgment-debtor, the equity of redemption of the mortgagor can be sold, and his application would not offend against the provisions of section 99 of the Transfer of Property Act. We can see no difference between the position of third person obtaining a simple money decree against the mortgagor and that of an assignee of a money decree obtained by the mortgagee but not in his capacity as mortgagee. The learned vakil, who appeared for the appellant, referred to the ruling of the Calcutta High Court in Chunder Nath Dey v. Burroda Shoondery Ghose,[1894] I.L.R., 22 Cal., 813.. The learned vakil, who appeared for the appellant, referred to the ruling of the Calcutta High Court in Chunder Nath Dey v. Burroda Shoondery Ghose,[1894] I.L.R., 22 Cal., 813.. That case in our judgment is distinguishable from the present case, There the decree which was assigned to the applicant for execution declared a charge in favour of the decree-holder upon the property of the mortgagor for the amount of the decree. It was this decree including the charge which was assigned to the applicant for execution. As the assignee himself thus became the holder of the charge he could not sell the equity of redemption, without violating the provisions for section 99. It was therefore held that that section would preclude him from proceeding against the mortgaged property. In the present case the respondent has nothing to do with the mortgage held by Hargun. He has acquired no rights in respect of that mortgage, and therefore by seeking a sale of the equity of redemption he has in no way transgressed the provisions of section 99 of Act No. IV of 1882. We do not think section 233 of the Code of Civil Procedure helps the appellant. In our judgment the Court below was right, and we dismiss the appeal with costs.