This case came up to this Court once before in S.A. No. 1740 of 1943. The only question is whether attachment was actually effected in accordance with law of the properties in suit purchased by the father of defendants 1 and 2 from the third defendant on 26th October, 1928. There was an order for attachment before judgment obtained by the plaintiff in a suit O.S. No. 524 of 1927, in the District Munsiff’s Court of Tenkasi. The plaintiff eventually obtained a decree in the suit on 11th February, 1928, and purchased the properties in execution and a sale certificate was issued to him on 17th March, 1933. If the attachment had been validly made then undoubtedly the title acquired by the father of defendants 1 and 2 would not prevail against the title obtained by the plaintiff at the Court sale It is clear from Ex. G, that there was an order for attachment before judgment made by the Court in I.A. No. 1419 of 1927 in O.S. No. 524 of 1927. The question is whether in pursuance of this order, an attachment was effected in respect of the Slit properties The properties covered by the order of attachment were several. Some of them were iyan lands paying revenue to the Government while others were lands in a mitta village, in which there was also a house. The properties in suit are the lands in the mitta village. At the original trial except Ex G no other documentary evidence was adduced to prove the attachment. This was alleged to be due to the fact that when the plaintiff made an application for copies of the relevant documents, the application was returned with the endorsement "destroyed". The District Munsiff held that it had not been proved that the suit properties were attached before judgment and therefore the sale in favour of the father of defendants 1 and 2 was perfectly valid. This finding of the learned District Munsiff was confirmed on appeal by the learned Subordinate Judge. In the lower appellate Court there were applications made for admission of certain additional documents which were rejected. There was then a second appeal by the Plaintiff, S.A. No. 1740 of 1943. The learned Judge, Somayya, J., held that the documents sought to be admitted in evidence ought not to have been refected He set aside the decree of the lower appellate Court and remanded the Seal for fresh disposal after the admission of the new documents He also gave both partties liberty to adduce evidence, if need be, in regard to these documents. In pursuance of this order, three new documents were admitted as Exs. AA BB and CC and P .Ws 7 and 8 Were examined on behalf of the plaintiff while D.W. 6 was examined for the defendants. After a consideration of the entire evidence including the evidence newly adduced, the learned Subordinate Judge found that there had been no attachment of the properties in suit and dismissed the appeal. The plaintiff has again come up in second appeal to this Court.

Mr. T.V. Muthukrishna Aiyar, learned advocate for the plaintiff-appellant, contended that the finding of the lower appellate Court that there had been no contended that the finding of the lower appellate Court that there had been no attachment, though essentially a finding of fact,ought not to be accepted because it was vitiated by the omission to apply certain presumption which should have been made in the circumstance of the case. Before dealing with this contention it is necessary to ascertain what facts are to be established before it can be held that a valid attachment in accordance with law had been made in respect of immovable property. The material provision is Order XXI, rule 54, of the code of Civil Procedure, which runs as follows:

"(1) Where the property is immovable, the attachment shall be made by an order prohibiting the judgment-debtor form transferring or charging the property in any way, and all persons from taking any benefit from such transfer or charge.

(2) The order shall be proclaimed at some place on or adjacent to such property by be