Devadoss, J.

1. The plaintiffs suit is for a declaration that the plaint property belongs to them and is not liable to attachment in execution of the decree obtained by the 1st defendant against the 2nd defendant. Both the Courts have dismissed the plaintiffs suit. The plaintiffs have preferred this second appeal.

2. The first point raised by Mr. Somasundaram for the appellants is that there is no valid attachment on the property and, therefore, it cannot be brought to sale in execution of the decree of the 1st defendant. A few facts are necessary to understand the contentions between the parties. The 1st defendant obtained a money-decree in O. S. No. 38 of 1912 in the Munsifs Court against the 2nd defendant, and applied for execution of the decree on 12th March 1914, and an order was passed for attaching the 2nd defendants property. The 2nd defendant appealed against the decree and an order for staying execution was passed by the appellate Court on 13th March 1914. The stay order was received by the District Munsifs Court on 16th March 1914, and the attachment was completed on 23rd March 1914. As the 2nd defendant failed to furnish security as directed by the appellate Court