The first defendant in O.S.No. 562 of 1977, on the file of the District Munsif’s Court, Vriddhachalam, is the appellant.

.2. The plaintiff, who is the first respondent herein, filed the above suit for declaration of his title and permanent injunction to restrain the first defendant from interfering with his possession, and in the alternative, to recover possession from the defendants.

.3. The material facts are as follows:-

.Defendants 1 and 2 are brothers. The first defendant herein filed O.S.No.246 of 1969, on the file of the District Munsif’s Court, Vriddhachalam, claiming half share in the plaint items in that suit. The sole defendant therein is the second defendant in the present suit. The suit was filed on 11. 1969. A preliminary decree was passed on 23. 1979, and a final decree was also passed on 20.3.1971. As per the final decree, the plaintiff therein was allotted half share and the second defendant herein was gi ven the remaining half. The plaintiff was also awarded costs and mesne profits in the suit, allowing to recover the same from the second defendant herein.

4. Before execution was levied in the earlier suit, the second defendant executed a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff herein in respect of the portion of the property allotted to him on 15. 1975. Ex.A-1 is the sale deed.

5. After the sale deed was executed, the first defendant levied execution for recovery of the costs and mesne profits awarded to him. He moved the application on 11. 1976, and four items of properties belonging to the second defendant herein were attached. Item 4 in the schedule included the plaint item in this case. On 18. 1977, the fourth item in the attachment schedule was sold, and the sale was confirmed on 13. 1977. After confirmation of sale, he moved an application for delivery of the property on 111. 1977, and delivery was recorded on 12. 1978. In the meanwhile, the plaintiff herein filed the presentsuit on 211. 1977. According to the plaintiff, he is not a party in O.S. No.246 of 1969 and he purchased the property after paying consideration for the same. On the date of attachment, the property did not belong to the second defendant and he is bona fide purchaser for value. He apprehends that on the basis of the delivery list, the first defendant may interfere with his enjoyment, and consequently he wanted an injunction against him.

6. In the written statement filed by the first defendant (appellant herein), he disputed the validity of Ex.A-1 sale deed. The main contention that was put forward by the appellant was that the sale deed was executed to defraud and delay the creditors, and Ex.A-1 has not come into effect. He also said that on the basis of Ex.A-1, the plaintiff did not get possession and the document is really sham. By effecting an attachment, he has really avoided the sale. According to him, the plaintiff will not get any right on the basis of the said document.

7. The trial court, after taking into consideration the evidence, both oral and documentary, has held that the plaintiff is a bona fide purchaser for value, and the document has come into effect, and consequenty title and possession were declared.

8. The Appeal filed by the first defendant before the lower appellate court was not successful. The lower appellate court also found that the plaintiff, is a bona fide purchaser for value. It also found that there are no circumstances vitiating the sale. The Appeal was dismissed. It is against the concurrent finding, the first defendant has filed this Second Appeal.

9. In this Second Appeal, three substantial questions of law have been raised for consideration:-

“1) Whether in law the Courts below were right in not presuming against the genuineness and truth of the sale particularly when the plaintiff himself admits that he had kowledge of the indebtedness of the first plaintiff?

2) Whether in law the Courts below were right in holding that Ex.A-1 is true and valid when it is not written on st