( 1 ) THE only question raised in this second appeal centres round the decision on the issue :-

"is the plaintiff an owner in possession of the suit property and it is liable to be released from attachment ?"on the second issue, on the question of collusive nature of the suit. no arguments were addressed in the lower Appellate Court and the Court of first instance had disposed of that issue with the observation that there was no evidence of collusion in the case.

( 2 ) ON the issue of ownership and possession also, it is noteworthy, the two Courts below have arrived at a concurrent conclusion.

( 3 ) THE facts necessary for understanding the controversy may now briefly be stated. Ram Saran Dass appellant, who was defendant No. 1 in the Court of first instance, had obtained a decree against Lakshmi Narain defendant No. 2 in that Court. In execution of that decree, house No. 923 situated in village Chiragh, Delhi, was attached. Smt. Ram Kali, respondent No. 1 in this Court, instituted the suit giving rise to this appeal for declaration that the house belonged to her and also claimed an injunction restraining Ram Saran Dass from getting the house sold in execution of his decree