John Wallis, C.J.

1. This appeal from a decree for redemption raises questions of some importance as to the duration and effect of an attachment of immoevable property in execution of a money decree in O.S. No. 341 of 1994 in the Palghat District Munsifs Court against the present 7th defendant and the other members of his family. The decree was transferred for execution to the Palghat Sub-ordinate Court which attached the immoveable properties of the family including the properties now in suit on 9th September, 1895. The attachment was struck off for want of process on the 4th November following, and the decree went back to the Munsifs Court, where the decree-holders recovered certain sums by way of rateable distribution in 1996 and 1897, and thereafter kept the decree alive by applications to that court for execution against the person until the 5th of March, 1907, the day before the decree would have become barred. when the transferee of the decree made a fresh application to the Subordinate Court in E.P. No. 31 of 1907 for attachment and sale of the properties. There was no fresh attachment, but sale was ordered after overruling the objections raised by the counter-petiti