Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.

The appellant's grandfather, Kuttichakku Agasthy and his legal representatives were defendants in various suits. The decree against them in O.S.No.521/1991 of the Irinjalakuda Munsiff’s Court led to Ext.A2 sale certificate in favour of the decree holder in that case. By Ext.A1, the appellant got assignment of Ext.A2 property. On the strength of such title, he filed claim petitions in the course of execution of two other decrees against his grandfather's estate and heirs. The court below dismissed those claims holding that the decree holder in O.S.No.521/I991 took Ext.A2 sale certificate with the encumbrances noticed therein as Malayalam (Badhyatha Edakkudi), which were the liabilities in about I8 suits in different courts, including the suits from which these appeals arise and therefore, he and the claim petitioner, his transferee under Ext.A1, are bound by those encumbrances. Hence, these appeals.

2. In support of these appeals, it is argued that what subsisted in the suits enlisted in Ext. A2 were only attachments and therefore not encumbrances and would not, in law, affect Ext.A2 sale. Citing the decision of this Court in Iyyunni v. Anto