( 1 ) THE petitioner is the plaintiff. He filed O. S. No.-226 of 1977 for the recovery of the suit claim and also an LA. under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC for-attachment before judgment on December, 29, 1977. On the same day attachment before judgment was ordered. The first and second defendants filed an application to raise the attachment. The trial Court raised the attachment. Thus this revision petition.

( 2 ) THE first respondent contends that the 3rd respondent entered into an agreement of sale on February, 25, 1975 to sell the attached property to them for a valuable consideration Rs. 35,000/- and a sum of Rs. 20,000/- was paid under a demand draft drawn on the State Bank of India and the balance amount was paid by discharging the debts Of third respondent and cash payments from time to time and the time for execution of the sale-deed was extended upto March, 31, 1978. The first respondent purchased stamps for registration of the documents on December, 20, 1977 and two separate sale deeds were executed in favour of the respondents 1 and 2 on the same day and they were registered on January, 4 1978. Therefore the first respondent has title and interest to the property on the date when the attachment before judgment was made. The 3rd respondent is divested of her title. Accordingly the attachment does not bind the first respondent.

( 3 ) THE petitioner has resisted the contentions stating that this is a fraudulent transaction brought into being to defeat his claims with a view to avoid the decree. The trial court had not accepted the contentions of the petitioner.

( 4 ) SURYANARAYANARAO, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that though the registration dates back to the date of the execution of the document, the registration is not complete until the document is copied in the books of registration by the Registrar of Assurances. Till then, the title is not extinguished. By. which date there is already an attachment subsisting and the first respondent does not acquire right, title or interest in the property. Therefore, the attachment before judgment prevails over the later registration of the documents. Thereby the necessary conclusion is that the document has been executed fraudulently with a view to defeat and delay the right of the petitioner to have his decree executed against the property of the 3rd respondent, the real owner of the property. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied upon Ram Saran vs. Domini Kuer, AIR J961 SC 1747. am unable to agree. Under Section 64 CPC where an attachment bas been made; any private transfer or delivery of the property attached or of any interest therein and any payment to the judgment-debtor of any debt, divident or other monies contrary to such attachment, shall be void as against all ciaims enforceable under the attachment. Yet this right will be subject to the interest acquired under section 40 of the Transfer of Property Act, which postulates this. "where, for the more beneficial enjoyment of his own immovable property, a third person has independently of any interest in the immovable property of another or of any easement theteon a right to restrain the enjoyment in a particular manner of the latter where a third person is entitled to the benefit of an obligation arising oat of contract and annexed to the ownership of immovable property, but not amounting to. an interest therein or easement thereon, such right or obligation may be enforced against a transferee with notice thereof or a gratuitous transferee of the property affected thereby but not against a transferee for consideration and without notice of the right or obligation, nor against such property in his hands". In the Mulla on the Transfer of Property Act. 1882, Fifth Edition, para 10 at page 199, it is stated thus. "there is a conflict of decisions as to whether the obligation annexed by this section to the ownership of property by a contract of sale will prevail against claims en