1. We agree with the learned District Judge that the decree does not provide for payment of interest of costs by the 9th defendant who is now represented by the 12th defendant. The appeal is dismissed with costs. The memorandum of objections raises the question whether the plaintiff is entitled to execute his decree for costs against the 9th defendant when it appears that the third item of the mortgaged properties has not yet been sold. But this item was released on the 12th defendant the legal representative of the 9th defendant, himself laying claim to it as his own property. That being so it could not reasonably be said that the plaintiff cannot execute his decree for costs against other properties of the 9th defendant. The cases in Shanmuga Pillai v. Ramanathan Chetti I.L.R. (1894) M. 309 and Phirbu Narain Singh v. Amir Singh I.L.R. (1907) A. 369 make it clear that a mortgage-decree-holder is not bound to make attempts to sell properties which are shown to belong to persons other than the judgment debtor before he can proceed against the properties of the judgment-debtor. The memorandum of objections is dismissed with costs.