1. One Sobhanadri Rao obtained a mortgage decree for sale against Ramayya (respondent 3 here), brought the mortgaged property to sale and became auction-purchaser. After the auction but before confirmation of the sale respondents 1 and 2 here brought a suit for money, O.S. 89 of 1928, against Ramayya in the District Munsifs Court and obtained an attachment before judgment of the same property in this suit on 5th February 1928. On 6th February 1928 Ramayya sold the property to Madhava Rao (appellant here) and on 13th February 1928, having paid into Court what v as necessary under Order 21, Rule 89, Civil P. C, got the auction sale to Sobhanadri Rao cancelled. Madhava Rao then applied to the District Munsif for the raising of the attachment obtained by respondents 1 and 2, who by that time had got a decree in their suit but bad not applied for execution. The District Munsif held that their attachment was invalid and formally raised it. They then appealed to the Subordinate Judge, who remanded the petition to the District Munsif. Madhava Rao now appeals against that order of remand.

2. It is contended for Madhava Rao that no appeal lay to the Subordinate Judge against the Distr