Anantakrishna Ayyar, J.

1. These second appeals preferred by the plaintiffs arise out of two suits instituted by the same plaintiffs against defendants 1 and 2 who are the same in both the suits, and against defendant 3 who is the purchaser from one or other of the other defendants of the properties mentioned in the plaint. The prayer in the suits was for a declaration that the plaint properties belong to defendants 1 and 2 and that the sale deeds executed in favour of defendant 3 are not binding on the creditors of defendants 1 and 2. The purchaser is different in the two suits; he is defendant 3 in each case. The purchasers will be referred as defendant 3 in the judgment for the sake of convenience. Defendant 3 in O.S. No. 236 of 1921 purchased from defendants 1, and defendant 3 in O.S. No. 237 of 1921 from defendant 2.

2. The plaintiffs alleged that they obtained a money decree in O.S. No. 517 of 1916 and attached the plaint properties before judgment in the said suit; when final orders had to be passed in respect of the said attachment defendants 1 and 2 undertook not to alienate the properties pending disposal of the suit. After obtaining decree the plaintiffs had the pr