Raju, J

1. The above letters Patent Appeal has been filed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 20.7.1989 in A.A.O. No. 840 of 1988, whereunder the learned single Judge, while concurring with the order of the learned second Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore, dismissing a claim petition filed in E.A. No. 1791 of 1982 in E.P.45 of 1982 in O.S.399 of 1980 has dismissed the appeal on the view that there was no infirmity or illegality in the order of the Second Additional Subordinate Judge.

2. Mr. S.V.Jayaraman, learned counsel appearing for the appellant strenuously argued that the learned first Appellate Judge, as also the learned trial Judge failed to see that the attachment of immovable property had been effected only on 13. 1982 and that even before the said date, the appellant has purchased the property under a sale deed, dated 211. 1981 in pursuance of the sale agreement, dated 15. 1981 and there was no pleading by the creditor that the judgment debtor had no other property than the property under attachment and further, the creditor has not also alleged that the transfer is a fraudulent one.

3. The learned counsel took us at length through the