JUDGMENT Chamier, J.
1. The plaintiff in this case sold some immoveable property to the defendant for a stated consideration of Rs. 910. The sale deed shows that Rs. 343-1 were paid in cash to the plaintiff and that Rs. 556 15 were left in the hands of the defendant for payment to certain creditors of the plaintiff. The expression used in the deed is waste adai mahajenan Rs. 566-15 amanat chhor dia and the deed went on to provide that the defendant should pay off the creditors mentioned at the foot of the document, receive back certain documents from their possession and obtain receipts from them. In the present case, the plaintiff comes into Court setting out the above facts and saying that the defendant had paid no more than Rs. 448-15-0, that she had not paid the balance and that she had rendered no account to the plaintiff of the money left in her hands notwithstanding that she had been repeatedly called upon to give such an account and the plaintiff prayed for a decree for the sum which he alleged was still in the hands of the defendant. The defendant pleaded that the sale-deed did not require her to render any account to the plaintiff but that, as a matter of fact, she had paid the whole sum left in her hands to the Creditors except about Rs. 18 or 20, On the case coming before the Court, the plaintiff contended that it was for the defendant to begin and that if the defendant gave no evidence, the suit should be decreed. The Munsif rejected the contention and dismissed the suit. The plaintiff appealed, and the Subordinate Judge held that it was for the defendant to begin inasmuch as she was bound to account to the plaintiff, for the money left in her hands. Accordingly, he allowed the appeal and decreed the claim. It appears to me that neither of these decisions is correct. In my opinion, the plaintiff is entitled to call upon the defendant for an account of the money left in her hands and the suit should be regarded as one for an account notwithstanding that the plaintiff asked for a decree for a definite sum of money. But in this view, the Court should have passed a preliminary decree directing accounts to be taken. Had this been done, the defendant would have been called upon to produce an account and she would then have understood that it was for her to begin. Until she is called upon by the Court to produce an account, the Court is not in a position to pass a decree for any sum of money. In this view of the case, it is premature to consider whether the plaintiff is entitled to a lien or charge on the property sold. But I would refer the Court below to the decision of the Madras High Court reported as Abdulla Beary v. Mammali Beary 33 M. 446; 5 Ind. Cas. 87 : 7 M.L.T. 376. I allow this appeal, set aside the decree of the Court below and remand the case through the lower Appellate Court to the Court of first instance in order that it may be disposed of according to law. The Court should make an order directing accounts to be taken and then call upon the defendant to produce an account. Costs here and in the Courts below will be costs in the cause.