In a suit for money a decree is passed by consent whereby the defendant is directed to pay to the plaintiff Rs. 35,000. It is further declared by the decree that the plaintiff should have a first charge on certain immovable property belonging to the defendant. Is the plaintiff entitled to have the property sold in execution of the decree without institution a regular suit for sale on the charge?

A. Yes, because there being no mortgage or charge prior to the decree, the decree cannot be said to have been obtained 'for the payment of money in satisfaction of a claim arising under the mortgage' within the meaning of O. 34 r 14

B. No, because there being no mortgage or charge prior to the decree, the decree can be said to have been obtained 'for the payment of money in satisfaction of a claim arising under the mortgage' within the meaning of O. 34 r 14

C. The immovable property must have been made security for the payment of the money before the decree was obtained, otherwise the provision of this rule do not apply

D. None of these

Answer: Option A