Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.

1. The question which has been referred for decision is this:

In a private transfer made after and during the pendency of an attachment in one suit, void against the title of an auction-purchaser in execution of a decree in another suit under an attachment made after the transfer but while the decree in the former suit remained unsatisfied and the attachment therein was subsisting?

2. The circumstances which have given rise xo this reference are these. On the 25th October, 1924, one Appu Chetty obtained a money decree in O. Section No. 497 of 1923 of the Court of the District Munsif of Salem. The decree was transferred to the Court of the District Munsif of Krishnagiri for execution. On the 5th March, 1925, the decree-holder applied in Execution Proceedings No. 132 of 1925 for the attachment and sale of the property, There was then due under the decree a sum of Rs. 2,399-4-6. An order of attachment was passed on the same day and the attachment was effected two days later, the 7th March, 1925. On 20th May, 1926, the judgment-debtors mortgaged the attached property to respondents 1 to 4 to secure a loan of Rs. 1,200. Appu Chetty had previously agr