Horwill, J.-The respondent obtained a simple money decree. In execution against the property with which we are here concerned, the property was attached but the petition was subsequently dismissed for default on the ground that the sale papers and the encumbrance certificate had not been filed. Eventually, however on 28th January, 1943, the decision of the executing Court was reversed, with the result that the execution proceeded. In the meanwhile,however, on 10th May 1941, the appellant purchased the property that had been attached for Rs. 4,500, Two questions arise in this appeal (1) whether, upon the allowing of the appeal, the consequential order raising the attachment was automatically set aside; and (2) whether, even if it did so, it would affect the transaction that had been entered into at a time when in fact no attachment was subsisting. Both these points were decided against the appellant by the learned Judge (Panchapakesa Aiyar, J.) in second appeal; but as he has granted a certificate, these two questions have been reagitated in this Letters Patent Appeal.

Our attention has not been drawn to any decisions directly on the point here raised; but arguments have proc