The District Court dismissed the complaint which sought first the return of realty seized and sold on execution by the United States in satisfaction of certain tax liens, and second, damages 1 ***for the wrongful detention of the property.

The District Court held that the suit for recovery of the realty was an unconsented suit against the United States and hence the court was without jurisdiction. The court then went on to pass on the merits of the claim assuming, arguendo, that it had jurisdiction, and held that the sale of the realty in partial satisfaction of appellants’ transferee tax liability was valid. 2

*735 Title 28 U.S.C. § 2410 upon which appellants rely waives the sovereign immunity of the United States to suits to quiet title to real property on which the United States has a lien or a mortgage. The suit is not a suit to quiet title, but to recover property the title to which is in the United States, a form of action as to which 28 U.S.C. § 2410 does not waive sovereign immunity. See Sissman v. Chicago Title & Trust Co., 1941, 375 Ill. 514, 32 N.E.2d 132. Appellant relies on 28 U.S.C. § 2463 but that statute applies only to personal property.

Affirmed.