Beasley, J.

1. The appellant here was the plaintiff in the District Munsifs Court and his suit there was for a declaration that the plaint scheduled property was not liable to be attached in O.S. Nos. 529 and 537 of 1919 against defendant 3 by defendants 1 and 2, as the plaintiff had purchased the property from defendant 3 for full and valuable consideration under a registered sale-deed-dated 16th August 1919. The issues raised in the District Munsifs Court were five in number, but there are only two which are of any importance Issue 1. was Whether the attachments made in O.S. Nos. 537 and 529 of 1919 are not valid?

2. And issue 2:

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the property?

3. If I may pause here, I think I ought to point out that the issues are in the wrong. order and that the first and in fact the most important matter to be decided was whether the plaintiff was entitled to the property. The District Munsif in his judgment held that the transaction set up by the plaintiff to establish his right to the property was a sham transaction. He therefore found issue 2 against the plaintiff and he then further proceeded to find issue 1 also against the plaintiff. In the lower