Yahya Ali, J.
1. This appeal has to be dismissed on two short points. The learned District Judge found that the first loan, the land improvement loan, was fully discharged and had been closed before the sale of Suit No. 820 which took place on 8th February 1934. He was of the view that this land was wrongly sold for the balance of the agricultural loan which was still outstanding. He took that view apparently because he was of the opinion that it was only the land which constituted security for the loan that could be sold for the realisation thereof. That view does not seem on an examination of the provisions of the Agriculturists Loans Act to be correct. Under Section 5 of that Act every loan made under that statute could be recovered from the person to whom the loan was made as if it as an arrear of land revenue; and the procedure for realising arrears of rent is laid down in the Revenue Recovery Act. Section 5 of that Act provides that when-ever revenue may be in arrear, it shall be lawful for the Collector, or other officer empowered by the Collector in that behalf, to proceed to recover the arrear, together with interest and costs of process by the sale of the defaulter's movable and immovable property, or by execution against the person of the defaulter in the manner provided. Thus, it is clear that for the recovery of a loan advanced under the Agriculturists Loans Act it is open to the Collector to sell any part of the immovable property belonging to the defaulter, and the remedy is not confined to that particular property in respect of which or for whose improvement the loan had been taken. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that the sale is altogether null and void as no notices were served as prescribed in the Revenue Recovery Act upon him, the mortgagee. I do not find any warrant for the claim that for the sale of property belonging to a defaulter notices should be served on persons holding a mortgage over his property. In the present case, I am satisfied that notices were served on the person who owned Suit No. 320 at the time, and consequently there is no illegality in effecting the sale by reason of non-service of notice on the mortgagee or for any other reason. In view of this finding, the ground upon which the learned District Judge proceeded to dismiss the appeal, namely, the bar arising under Section 59, Revenue Recovery Act, comes into play. Under that section a suit disputing the legality of a revenue sale has to be instituted within six months from the date on which the cause of action arose. Admittedly in this case the suit was filed after the expiry of the prescribed period. Consequently the suit on that ground also becomes not maintainable. The appeal is dismissed with costs of respondent 6. Leave refused.