Sankarasubban, J.

This appeal is preferred by the petitioner in E.A. No. 814 of 1997 in E.P. No. 447 of 1997 in O.S. No. 305 of 1994 of the Sub Court, Thrissur. The appellant filed the claim petition under order 21 Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure. According to the appellant, 1 cent of land in Sy. No. 1258/2 of Thrissur Village and the shop room thereon belong to the appellant. The appellant purchased the said property situated in Thrissur town and described in B schedule to the claim petition, E.A. No. 814 of 1997, as per sale deed No. 4653 of 1994 of Thrissur Sub Registry Office from one Rafi. The said Rafi had purchased the property as per sale deed No. 1688/1994 from one Beena, the second respondent in the appeal.

2. On 26.6.1997, the petitioner came to know that two cents of land and the shop rooms of which the appellant's land and the shop room form part, had been attached in the suit, O.S. No. 305 of 1994 on 11.3.1994. Ext. A2 sale deed was executed in favour of Rafi on 4.3.1994 and the said sale deed was registered on 11.3.1994. When Rafi took the sale deed, the suit had not been filed. The appellant also took Ext. A1 sale deed without knowledge of the attachment, since at the time of execution of the said document, Rafi also had no information about the suit or attachment. As soon as the appellant came to know of the attachment, he filed the claim petition.

3. Objections were filed by the decree holder as well as the judgment debtor. The decree holder filed objection stating that the property was not sold to Rafi on 4.3.1994. The judgment debtor, Rafi as well as the petitioner were aware of the fact of attachment of the petition schedule property. Sale deed No. 1688/94 was prepared and registered to defeat the claim of the decree holder. There is no consideration for this sale deed. This document was prepared collusively by the petitioner joining with Rafi and the second respondent.

4. The judgment debtor filed an objection. According to her, the petitioner was pressing the judgment debtor for return of the amount due to him. The petitioner insisted that one of the rooms in petition A schedule property should be registered in his name. Rafi was inducted as a mediator. Due to the insistence of the petitioner, the northern room of petition A schedule property was registered in the name of Rafi. The petitioner told the judgment debtor that he would pay off the debt due to the decree holder and that the northern room should be assigned in his name. Making the judgment debtor believe that the petitioner had cleared the debt due to the decree holder, the petitioner managed to get the sale deed in respect of petition B schedule property in favour of Rafi. The attachment before judgment was effected on the same day. After execution of the sale deed the second respondent came to know that the petitioner did not clear the debt due to the decree holder. The sale deed happened to be registered in the name of Rafi only because of the insistence of the petitioner.

5. On the side of the claim petitioner, Exts. A1 to A8 were marked. The claim petitioner was examined as PW1. RW1 and RW2 were examined on behalf of the respondents. The lower court, on the basis of the decision reported in Cherichi v. Ittianam 2000(1) K.L.T. 415 held that the sale was complete after it was registered. Hence, it took the view that on the date on which the attachment was effected, the sale deed was not registered and the claim petition was not maintainable. If further relied on the deposition of the judgment debtor that there is no consideration of the transaction and the sale deed was a sham document at the instance of the petitioner. Thus, the claim petition was dismissed. It is against the above that the present appeal is filed.

6. Sri. P. Gopakumaran Nair appearing for the appellant contended that the lower court was not correct in holding tat the sale takes effect only after the registration of the document. He contended that it takes effe