1. So far as the amount covered by this execution petition is concerned, the question whether payment should be in money or kind is res judicata by reason of the order in E.P. No. 32 of 1928.
2. For the judgment-debtors Mr. Lakshmanna contends that the decree, so far as it creates a charge, is not executable but can only be the basis of a further suit for sale. That is against the decision in Sowbagia Ammal v. Manicka Mudaliar  42 I.C. 975, where the decree was in similar terms to that in this suit: see also Muttia v. Veerammal  10 Mad. 283 and Minakshi v. Chinnappa  24 Mad. 689 Mr. Lakshmanna has a further contention that, even if the charge can be executed by sale without a fresh suit, the land charged must first be attached. No authority for that proposition can be cited and to require attachment of the property to be sold is inconsistent with the sale in execution' of property mortgaged or charged. The mention of attachment in the head note to the report of Soubagia Ammal v. Manicka Mudaliar is a mistake. Apparently the decree-holder wished to attach the property, but the learned Judges did not suggest anywhere in their judgment that it was necessary.
3. This appeal is dismissed with costs.