These two Second Appeals arise out of the common judgment of the learned District Judge of South Arcot dismissing two appeals preferred against the orders of the learned District Munsif of Vridhachalam, dismissing in turn the two claim applications M.P. Nos. 655 of 1951 and 668 of 1951.

The decree-holders respondents in these two appeals had obtained a decree in O.S. No. 14 of 1937 on the file of the District Munsif’s Court of Vridhachalam, South Arcot, for specific amounts by way of maintenance in their favour. These amounts were also made a charge over the properties set out in the schedule to the decree. The decree also was against the assets of the first defendant in the hands of the other defendants. Subsequent to the decree the charged properties appear to have been sold away by the heirs of the first defendant. The decree-holder applied for execution of the decree in E.P. No. 215 of 1950 and prayed for attachment of certain properties not charged, and they were accordingly attached.

Two of these properties had already been sold by Thangammal, a daughterin-law of the first defendant, acting on behalf of her minor children, in favour of Govinda Padayachi. This sale was under Exhibit A-1, dated 19th September, 1944. Another Thangammal was the purchaser of another property under the sale deed Exhibit A-4, dated 24th December, 1945. After the attachment of these properties, the vendees, Govinda Padayachi and Thangammal, filed the two applications M.P. Nos. 655 of 1951 and 668 of 1951, to get these properties released from attachment. The applications were made under Order 21, rule 58, Civil Procedure Code.

By a common order, dated 14th September, 1953, the learned District Munsif of Vridhachalam dismissed these claim petitions, upholding that the attachment made on 19th April, 1944, was valid and that the rights of the claimants could not prevail as against the decree-holders’ rights. Against that order the two claimants preferred the two appeals A.S. Nos. 371 and 382 of 1953. The learned District Judge, concurring with the order of the learned District Munsif, dismissed the two appeals in a common order dated 19th December, 1953. The two claimants Govinda Padayachi and Thangammal have preferred these two miscellaneous second appeals referred to above.

It must be stated towards the decree obtained by the respondents, the judgmentdebtors had paid some amounts in instalments. The decree itself was for payment of Rs. 10 per mensem by way of maintenance for the wife and Rs. 5 for children. When the claim petitions were being investigated in E.P. No. 215 of 1950 by the learned District Munsif, the records disclosed that the sale deeds in favour of the respondents vendees had come into existence after attachment had been effected on a prior execution petition, viz., E. P. No. 279 of 1944. That attachment was on the 14th September, 1944; that is, some days prior to the sale deeds in favour of the respondents. The execution application in which the prior attachment had taken place, viz., E.P. No. 279 of 1944, was being adjourned from time to time and some claim petitions appear to have also been filed in that petition; which, however, did not succeed. Ultimately the execution petition itself was adjourned for sale papers more than once. On the 14th April, 1945, the execution Court terminated the proceedings by an order in these terms “ Not pressed. Attachment to continue” . The learned District Munsif, who construed these proceedings after he had reserved orders in the claim petitions now in question, came to the opinion that the sale deeds in favour of the respondents having come into existence after the properties had been attached and during the continuance of the attachment, could not prevail against the decree-holders. It is this conclusion of the learned District Munsif that has been attacked before the learned District Judge and is also now pressed for in these two appeals. A preliminary point was taken that the appeals b