JUDGMENT : STANLEY, J. The order of the Court below of which the appellant complains cannot be sustained. It appears that the respondent executed a mortgage in favour of the appellant of certain rights called malikana rights. A suit was brought upon the mortgage but the property mortgaged was described in the plaint as haq-i-zamindari, that is, proprietary rights. The Court made a decree under section 88 of the Transfer of Property Act for the sale of the zamindari rights, and this decree was made absolute under section 89 of the Act. The property thus ordered to be sold has been sold, but as the proceeds of the sale proved insufficient for the discharge of the debt, the appellant, decree-holder, made the application which has given rise to this appeal for a decree under section 90 of the Act. Both the Courts below have dismissed the application on the ground that the mortgaged property has not been sold. Section 90 of the Act provides “when the net proceeds of any such sale are insufficient to pay the amount due for the time being on the mortgage, if the balance is legally recoverable from the defendant otherwise than out of the property sold, the Court may pass a decree for such sum.” The words ‘such sale’ referred to in the section mainfestly mean a sale under the preceding sections, that is, a sale of the property directed to be sold by the decree under section 88 and the order under section 89. That property has in this case been sold and the proceeds of the sale were insufficient to pay the debt; the decree-holder is therefore entitled to an order under section 90. It is true that the interest in the property which was the subject-matter of the mortgage has not been sold, but the Court, wrongly in this instance, ordered some other interest in that property to be sold treating the same as the mortgaged property. The defendant ought to have opposed the claim, but he submitted to the decree passed against him. As the property ordered to be sold (rightly or wrongly) has been sold, the decree-holder is, we think, entitled to a decree under section 90. The principle of the ruling in Sheo Prasad v. Behari Lal,[1902] I.L.R., 25 All., 79 fully applies to this case. As the property ordered to be sold (rightly or wrongly) has been sold, the decree-holder is, we think, entitled to a decree under section 90. The principle of the ruling in Sheo Prasad v. Behari Lal,[1902] I.L.R., 25 All., 79 fully applies to this case. In that case a part only of the mortgaged property was sold, but it was held that although all the mortgaged property had not been sold a decree could be passed under section 90. We accordingly allow the appeal, set aside the decrees of the Courts below and remand the case to the Court of first instance through the lower appellate Court with directions to readmit it under its original number in the register and to prepare a decree under section 90 of the Transfer of Property Act. The appellant will have the costs of this appeal, including’ fees on the higher scale.