JUDGMENT : BANERJI, J. 1. In this case the lower appellate court has dismissed the suit on the ground that necessary parties had not been joined as defendants That ground cannot be supported. It appears that the defendants Nos. 1 & 2 executed a bond in favour of the plaintiff, in which they hypothecated certain property of which they were mortgagees; so that the mortgage in plaintiff's favour was a mortgage of the mortgagee rights, that is to say, it was a sub-mortgage. ‘ The plaintiff brought his suit for the recovery of the amounts alleged to be due to him and for the sale of the mortgagee rights mortgaged to him. The respondents here are purchasers of a portion of the mortgaged property, that is, of a portion of the mortgagee rights of the plaintiff's mortgagors. The plaintiff further states in his plaint that those defendants had undertaken a personal liability to pay the money due to the plaintiff. The court of first instance, apparently overlooking the rulings of this Court on the point, made a decree under section 88 of the Transfer of Property Act for the sale of the mortgagee rights. The lower appellate court dismissed the plaintiff's suit on the ground that the mortgagor of the plaintiff's mortgagors had not been made party. According to the ruling of this Court in Ganga Prasad v. Chunni Lal, [1895] I.L.R., 18 All., 113, which was followed in subsequent cases, no decree can be made under the Transfer of Property Act for the sale of mortgagee rights. 2. In that case it was pointed out that the only remedy to which the sub-mort-gagee was entitled was a decree for money against his mortgagor, and that he could, in execution of that decree, possibly have attached the mortgagee interests of his mortgagor. As, according to the rulings of this Court, the plaintiff could not get a decree for sale of the mortgagee rights sub-mortgaged to him, but could only obtain a money decree, the mortgagor of his mortgagors was not a necessary party to the suit, and the lower appellate court was entirely in error in dismissing the suit on the ground that he had not been made a party. Unfortunately for him the plaintiff has not joined as parties to this appeal his mortgagors; and the only persons who are respondents to this appeal are the dafendants Nos. Unfortunately for him the plaintiff has not joined as parties to this appeal his mortgagors; and the only persons who are respondents to this appeal are the dafendants Nos. 7 and 8, who are purchasers of a portion of the mortgagee rights of the plaintiff's mortgagors. ‘Ordinarily the plaintiff would not be entitled to a money decree against them, and consequently his claim for a money decree could not be maintained as against them. In the present case, however, the plaintiff states in the third paragraph of his plaint that these defendants took upon themselves to pay the amount of the debt due to the plaintiff and that they had only paid a part of that debt. This allegation was denied on behalf of these defendants, who contended that they had paid all that the plaintiff was entitled to get from them. These questions were not tried by the lower appellate court. As the preliminary ground on which that Court has dismissed the suit cannot be supported, I allow this appeal, set aside the decree of the lower appellate court in so far as it affects the respondents here, namely, the defendants, Nos. 7 and 8, and remand the case to the lower appellate court under section 562 of the Code of Civil Procedure with directions to re-admit it under its original number in the register, and dispose of all questions which are in issue between the plaintiffs and the defendants respondent?. Costs here and hitherto will follow the event.