( 1 ) THIS revision petition is filed against the order of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, ananthapur in E. P. 99/95 in O. S. No. 46/92.

( 2 ) THE revision petitioner is the decree- holder in O. S. No. 46 of 1992. He filed e. P. No. 99 of 1995 for realization of the decretal amount through attachment and sale of the schedule property. At the time of filing the suit, the decree-holder filed I. A. No. 194 of 1992 and attachment before judgment was ordered on 5-3-1992 under order 38, Rule 5 CPC. Subsequent to the decree, he filed E. P. 99 of 1995 in O. S. No. 46 of 1992 for attachment and sale of the schedule property. The judgment debtors (J. Drs.) resisted the execution petition contending that the schedule house was conveyed in favour of Tarimala Nabi sab by way of a registered sale deed by the principal Senior Civil Judge, Ananthapur as per the orders in E. P. 119 of 1992 in O. S. No. 56 of 1992 dated 7-8-1993 and possession was also delivered on same day. The purchaser, Sri Tarimala Nabi Sab was inducted into possession of the schedule house prior to the date of attachment. Since the J. Drs. are no more owners of the property, the E. P. cannot be maintained, therefore, it is liable to be dismissed.

( 3 ) THE purchaser of the property by name tarimala Nabi Sab was added as one of the respondents in that E. P. and he filed a counter stating that the schedule house was sold to him on 15-6-1990 by the judgment debtors under an agreement of sale and as the J. Drs. failed to execute the sale deed, he filed O. S. No. 56 of 1992 on the file of the sub-Court, Ananthapur and it was decreed in his favour directing the J. Drs. to execute the sale deed. Since the J. Drs. failed to execute the sale deed, he filed E. P. 119 of 1992 and got the sale deed executed by the court on 7-8-1993. He further contended that as he had no knowledge about the attachment of the property and as the purchase of the property was to the knowledge of the decree-holder, the E. P. is liable to be dismissed with costs.

( 4 ) THE decree-holder filed E. A. No. 223 of 1993 in E. P. No. 119 of 1992 in O. S. No. 56 of 1992 under Sections 64 and 151 C. P. C. contending that as he obtained attachment before judgment on 5-3-1992 in O. S. No. 46 of 1992, it prevails over the sale, therefore, e. P. No. 119 of 1992 is liable to be dismissed. But, the decree-holder not pressed the E. A. 223 of 1993 on the ground that the property was already conveyed to t. Nabi Sab by the Court in the E. P. proceedings.

( 5 ) THE lower Court conducted an enquiry by receiving oral and documentary evidence from both parties and ultimately held that as the schedule property was conveyed to tarimala Nabi Sab through a sale deed executed by the Principal Sub-Court, ananthapur in a decree for specific performance granted in pursuance of an agreement of sale, dated 15-6-1990, the e. P. schedule property cannot be brought to sale.

( 6 ) THE decree-holder, being aggrieved by the order of the lower Court, dt. 26-10-1999 preferred this revision petition questioning its validity and legality.

( 7 ) THE learned counsel for the revision petitioner-decree-holder contended that since there was attachment before judgment with effect from 5-3-1992, the subsequent sale deed will not have any priority over the attachment. Therefore, the property is liable to be sold for recovery of the amount covered by the decree in O. S. 46 of 1992.

( 8 ) IN the light of the contention of the revision petitioner, the points for consideration are; (1) Whether the agreement of sale is true and valid? (2) Whether the agreement of sale prevails over the attachment made subsequent to the agreement of sale? point No. 1:

( 9 ) THE J. Drs. contended that they executed an agreement of sale in favour of tarimala Nabi Sab on 15-6-1990 and in pursuance of a decree for specific performance in O. S. 56 of 1992 the Principal sub-Court, Ananthapur executed a registered sale deed on 7-8-1993 in favour of tarimala Nabi Sab a