( 1. ) THIS Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 14.10.2009 passed in C.M.A.No.64 of 2007 by the First Additional District Judge, Tirunelveli confirming the order dated 12.10.2007 passed in E.A.No.952 of 2006 in E.P.No.165 of 2006 in O.S.No.190 of 2002 by the Principal Sub Judge, Tirunelveli.

( 2. ) THE brief facts leading to the filing of this appeal are as follows:

(a) THE first respondent herein filed a suit in O.S.No.190/2002 before the Second Additional Sub-Court, Tirunelveli on 20.05.2002 against the second respondent herein for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,17,530.20 with interest. He also filed an application in I.A.No.308/2002 for attachment of the Schedule property before judgment. It is admitted that the second respondent appeared through counsel and gave an undertaking on 29.05.2002 to the effect that he would not alienate the property. On the basis of the said undertaking, the application in I.A.No.308/2002 was closed on 04.07.2002.

(b) THE first respondent made a paper publication on 23.05.2003 about the aforesaid undertaking given by the second respondent. Since the first respondent apprehended that the second respondent had an intention to alienate the property, despite the undertaking, he filed another application on 29.08.2003 in I.A.No.399/2003 for attachment.

(c) THE Trial Court passed an order of attachment on 03.09.2003 in I.A.No.399/2003 and the attachment was made absolute on 16.09.2003. Later, the suit was decreed on 09.12.2005.

(d) Based on the decree, the first respondent filed a petition in E.P.No.165/2006 in O.S.No.190/2002 before the Sub-Court, Tirunelveli against the second respondent for bringing the Schedule property for sale.

(e) When the sale notice was affixed on the Schedule property on 31.07.2006, the appellant herein filed an application in E.A.No.952/2006 in E.P.No.165/2006 in O.S.No.190/2002 under Order 21 Rule 58 and 151 C.P.C seeking declaration that he has title over the property and to raise the attachment. THE claim of the appellant was on the ground that he was a bonafide purchaser and that he was not aware of the undertaking given by the second respondent. THE appellant also claimed that when the second respondent executed the sale deed on 07.08.2003 in favour of the appellant, attachment was made only on 03.09.2003 and that therefore, it could have no effect. But the Trial Court rejected the claim made by the appellant vide order dated 12.10.2007.

(f) THEreafter, the appellant filed a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal in C.M.A.No.64 of 2007 before the First Additional District, Tirunelveli. THE same was dismissed on 14.10.2009 confirming the order dated 12.10.2007 passed in E.A.No.952/2006 in E.P.No.165/2006 in O.S.No.190/2002. Challenging the same, the present Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal is filed.

Heard both sides.

( 3. ) THE learned counsel for the appellant raised the following substantial questions of law.

(i) Whether the Courts below committed error in holding that the order of attachment passed on 03.09.2003 in I.A.No.399/2003 would have a binding effect despite the execution of sale deed on 07.08.2003 in Ex.P-5 by the second respondent in favour of the appellant, by ignoring Section 47 of the Indian Registration Act and applying Section 64(2) CPC ?

(ii) Whether the Courts below committed error in holding that the undertaking given by the second respondent in I.A.No.308/2002 that he will not alienate the property is binding on the appellant as if the undertaking amounts to order of attachment before judgment though the appellant is a bonafide purchaser ?

( 4. ) ISSUE NO.1 Admittedly, the sale deed executed by the second respondent in favour of the appellant was registered only on 30.09.2003 after the attachment of the property in issue was made on 03.09.2003 in I.A.No.399/2003. However, it is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the registration should relate back to 07.08.2003, since the document was executed an