Summarize the following court judgment. Appeal No. 542 of 1967. Appeal from the judgment and decree dated January 24	 1964	 of the Kerala High Court in Appeal Suit No. 368 of 1959. Manual T. Paikeday	 S.K. Sabharwal and Ganpat Rai	 for the appellant. A. R. Somanatha Iyer and M. R. K. Pillai	 for the respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Sikri	 C.J. By judgment dated May 26	 1970	 this Court (Sikri J.	 as he then was	 and Ray J.) allowed Civil Appeal No. 542 of 1967	 set aside the judgment of the High Court and passed a decree in favour of the appellant after modifying the decree passed by the Trial Court. The respondent subsequently filed Review Petition No. 35 of 1970 for review on the ground that they had failed to 978 bring to the notice of the Court the provisions of Travancore Regulation IX of 1094 and the fact that the loans were. granted under the above Regulation. We allowed review on February 1	 1971. This judgment is	 however	 in continuation of our earlier judgment dated May 26	 1970	 The only new point which needs discussion is the effect of the provisions of Travancore Regulation IX of 1094 on our conclusion on the fourth point in that judgment. We had inter alia held that the "fourth point raised by the learned counsel for the plaintiff is fatal for the respondent. " We observed that "the bonds do not give power to the Government to sell the properties other than mentioned in the bond. The properties mentioned in plaint A schedule items 2 to 5	 B Schedule items 1 and 3 to 8	 and C schedule items were not given as security under the bond and the Government had no authority to sell them. It is conceded on behalf of the respondent that all the properties were sold in one lot. This	 in our opinion ' vitiates that the sale of all the properties was void. " The fourth point raised before us was that "the Government had no authority to attach and sell plaint A schedule items 2 to 5 and B schedule items 1 and 3 to 8 and C schedule items	 which were not given as security under the bonds; and if the Government had no authority then the sale of all the properties is void. " We had while dealing with the third ground also observed that "no other regulation has been brought to our notice which makes dues under this bond to be recoverable as arrears of public or land revenue. " It now transpires that Regulation IX of 1094 Travancore Land Improvement & Agricultural Loans Regulation provides for recovery of land improvement loans from the borrower as if they were arrears of land revenue due by him. Section 7 of the above Regulation provides "7. (1) Subject to such Rules as may be made under Section 10	 all loans granted under this Regulation	 all interests (if any) chargeable thereon and costs (if any) incurred in making the same shall	 when they become due	 be recoverable in any of the following modes : (a) from the borrower as if they were arrears of land revenue due by him; (b) from his surety (if any as if they were arrears of land revenue due by him; (c) except as regards the loans referred to in Section 4	 out of the land for the benefit of which 979 the loan has been granted as if they were arrears of land revenue due in respect of that land; (d) out of the property comprised in the collateral security according to the procedure for the realisation of land revenue by sale of immovable property other than the land on which the revenue is due : Provided that no proceeding in respect of any land under Clause (c) shall affect any interest in that land which existed before the date of the order granting the loan	 other than the interest of the borrower	 and of mortgagees of	 or persons having cha rges on	 that interest	 and	 where the loan is granted under Section 3 with the consent of another person	 the interest of that person	 and of mortgagees of	 or persons having charges on	 that interest. (2) When any sum due on account of any such interests or costs is paid by a surety or an owner of property comprised in any collateral security	 or recovered from a surety or out of any such property	 such sum shall on the application of the surety or the owner of such property	 be recovered on his behalf from the borrower or out of the land for the benefit of which the loan has been granted	 in manner provided in this Section. " From these provisions it is quite clear that the loans granted under the Regulation	 interest and charges	 etc. can be recovered in any or all of the four modes described in the section. They can be recovered from the borrower under clause (a); they can be recovered from recovered from a surety under clause (b); the	 land for the benefit of which the loan had been granted can be proceeded. against under clause (c) ; and under clause (d) property comprised in the collateral security can be proceeded against. The fact that the properties which had been sold were not mentioned in the bond as collateral security or were not expressly hypothecated does not make any difference because the Travancore Revenue Recovery Act 1 of 1068 provides under section 5 that "when Public Revenue due on land may be in arrear	 such arrear	 together with interest	 if any	 and costs of process. may be recovered by the sale of the defaulter 's movable or immovable property or both	 in the manner hereinafter provided. " The learned counsel for the appellant contends that neither the Travancore Revenue Recovery Act 1 of 1068 nor the Land improvement and Agricultural Loans Regulation IX of 1094	 and 980 the rules made thereunder	 confer any power or jurisdiction on the State Government or its officers to sell through the machinery of the Revenue Recovery Act any other property of the borrower than what he has specifically given by his bond as security for the loan. It is further contended that the borrower does not incur any personal liability. unless he has specifically so covenanted in the bond and hence the sale of all the 12 out of the 13 items of land sold one item alone having been a security property under the loan agreement was unauthorised	 illegal and void. We are unable to agree with this contention. It is not necessary for the borrower to specifically so convenant in his bond that he would be personally liable because section 7 (1 ) (a) of Regulation IX of 1094 makes the borrower personally liable. This is also made clear by sub section Under sub section (2)	 if a surety pays the loan he can request that the money be recovered from the borrower on his behalf. The learned counsel relied on the decision in Ulahannan Quseph vs Koohitti Kochukiimari(1) where reference was made to an earlier judgment in the Dewan of Travancore vs Eravi Narayanan(2) in which it was held that "though under section 59 of the Revenue Recovery Regulation	 moneys due to Government under written agreements and all sums declared by other Regulations to be realisable as arrears of public revenue may be recovered under this Regulation	 that section only makes the machinery or procedure prescribed in the Regulation applicable to such cases	 and it would not follow that the incidents of a Revenue sale held under section 39 would also attach to sales held under the authority conferred by the provisions of section 59. " The Court held that the property in the case remained subject to the plaintiff 's prior charge. We are unable to appreciate how this case assists us on the question whether there is any personal liability of the appellant or not. The learned counsel also due our attention to Birendra Nath Raha vs Mir Mahabubar Rahaman (3). In this case it was held that according to the provisions of the Bengal Land Revenue Sales Act	 1868	 the properties in question could not be sold because they were neither an estate nor a tenure within section 5 of the Act. No such question arises in this case but it may be mentioned that at page 336 the Court interprated cl. (a) of section 7 of the Land Improvement Loans Act to mean that it imposed a personal liability on the borrower. (1) 	 54. (2) 29 Travancore Law Reports 37. (3) A.I.R. 1947 Cal. 981 There is	 however	 authority against the contentions of the appellant. The Madras High Court observed in Gonjalada Bhojarajappa vs Korlahalli Halappa(1) as follows : "It is clear from section 5	 Revenue Recovery Act	 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 may be noted that Section 5 of the 	 provides : "Every loan made in accordance with such rul es	 all interest (if any) chargeable thereon	 and costs (if any) incurred in making or recovering the same	 shall	 when they become due	 be recoverable from the person to whom the loan was made	 or from any person who has become surety for the repayment thereo f	 as if they were arrears of land revenue or costs incurred in recovering the same due by the persons to whom the loan was made or by his surety." In interpreting this section	 the Madras High Court	 in the above mentioned case clearly held that it was open to the Collector to sell any part of the immovable property belonging to the defaulter	 and the remedy was not confined to that particular property in respect of which or for whose improvement the loan had been taken. We may also mention that in Lakshman Venkatesh Naik vs Secretary of State(2)	 while dealing with section 7 of the 	 which is in terms similar to sec. 7 of Travancore Regulation IX of 1094	 it was observed that "it was therefore open to the Collector to adopt all or any of the four different methods which the Section provides for the recovery of the taqavi arrears. " In the result the appeal is dismissed. The parties will bear their own costs throughout. Our order dated February 1	 1971 awarding Rs. 1	500 to the appellant as thrown away costs shall however	 stand. K.B.N. Appeal dismissed. (1) A.I.R. 1946 Mad. 226. (2) A.I.R. (1939) Bom.

The loans granted under the Travancore Land Improvement and Agricultural Loans Regulation IX of 1094 together with interest and charges etc. can be recovered from the borrowers under cl. (a) of section 7(1) of the Regulation	 as arrears of land revenue due by him or in any of the other modes prescribed by cls. (b)	 (c) and (d) of the section. The fact that the properties which had been sold were not mentioned in the bond as collateral security or were not expressly hypothecated does not make any difference	 because	 Travancore Revenue Recovery Act 1 of 1068 (M.E.) provides under section 5 "when public revenue due on loan may be in arrear	 such arrear	 together with interest if any and cost and process may be recovered by the sale of the defaulter 's movable or immovable property or both in the manner hereinafter provided." Further	 it is not necessary for the borrower to specifically so covenant in his bond that he would be personally liable	 because	 section 7(1) (a) of the Regulation makes the borrower personally liable. This is also made clear by sub section (2) under which if a surety pays the loan he can request that the money be recovered from the borrower on his behalf. [979 F] Ulahannan Quseph vs Koohitti Kochukumari	 23 Tr. L. J. 1051	 54 and Birendra Nath Raha vs Mir Mahabubar Rahaman	 A.I.R. 1947 Cal. 332	 held inapplicable	 Gonjalada Bhojarajappa vs Korlahalli Halappa	 A.I.R. 1946 Mad. 226	 Lakshman Venkatesh Naik vs Secretary of State A.I.R. 1939 Bom. 183 Hand Birendra Nath Raha vs Mir Mahabubar Rahman	 A.I.R. 1947 Cal. 332	 referred to.