Judgment.:- The plaintiff in the suit out of which this second appeal arises lost before the trial Court but succeeded on appeal. The relevant facts are these:

2. The plaintiff obtained a decree against defendant 3 for over Rs. 9000 in the Dharwar Sub-Court in the State of Bombay and obtained an attachment before judgment of lands belonging to defendant 3 in Harvi of the Harpanahalli taluk of the district of Bellary. The attachment was ordered on 12-11-1936 and was actually effected on 2-12-1936. Defendant 3 on 4-11-1936, sold these lands to defendant 1 by a registered sale deed, Ex. p.2, for Rs. 600. Defendant 1, in his turn, sold them to defendant 2 under Ex. D-1, a registered sale deed, for Rs. 800 on 30-7-1942. Then the plaintiff filed the present suit for a declaration that the sale deeds Exs. P-2 and D-1 were void, nominal, fraudulent and not binding on him. The finding of both the Courts below is that the two alienations were brought about fraudulently to defeat, in anticipation, the attachment the plaintiff contemplated and further that in spite of these sale deeds defendant 3 continued to remain in possession and collected the rent.

3. The points taken before me for