Abdur Rahim, J.

1. I must hold that the learned District Judge is not right in saying that there was no proper proof of the existence of attachment at the date of the purchase of the 3rd defendant. As a matter of fact, we have got the attachment list of 1902 to show that the property was under attachment, and if at the time of the purchase by the third defendant which was in 1902 the attachment had been raised, it was for him to prove it. The learned District Judge ought to have proceeded on the assumption that the attachment continued. That being so, the purchase by the third defendant can be of no avail against the first defendant or his vendee. But it is argued that under Section 6 of the Madras Estates Land Act the tenant of the third defendant acquired a permanent right of occupancy when the Act came into force, i.e., in 1908, although the holding had been sold before the date and purchased by the first defendant, the landlord, in execution of his decree for rent. In support of this proposition a ruling of a division Bench of this Court has been put forward in Sivapada Mudali v. Thiagaraja Chettiar (1914) 27 M.L.J. 665. No doubt that decision supports the contention of