Odgers, J.

1. In this case an interesting question of law was opened, namely, as to whether the maintenance decree-holder with a charge (1st defendant) was to be held to have a superior claim to the plaintiff who purchased from a Court auction purchaser. It is admitted by Mr. Lakshmanna for the appellant that if the debt for which the property was brought to sale in execution of Small Cause No. 1906 of 1916 was not a debt binding on the family the claim of the 2nd defendant must prevail. The District Munsif held that the decree debt in S.C.S. No. 1906 of 1916 was not a binding debt which could prevail against the claim of the maintenance of the 1st defendant. He gives various reasons which have induced him to come to this conclusion and they are set out in paragraph 6 of his judgment. He observed inter alia that "the extract from the suit register could have been produced to show the nature of the claim in S.C.S. No. 1906 of 1916." There are, however, various other circumstances which induced him to come to,the conclusion that it has not been proved that the debt is a debt binding on the family. The Subordinate Judge, on the other hand, mainly or exclusively from the fact of