Short Note : 1. The maternal facts giving rise to this appeal briefly are as follows : In execution of a money decree passed against Bhanwarlal and Sitaram in favour of the defendant-decree-holder, the suit house was attached. The plaintiff objected to the attachment under O. 21, R. 58 CPC, but the objection was overruled and hence the plaintiff filed the present suit for declaration that the suit house was not liable to be attached and said in execution of a decree against Sitaram and Bhanwarlal. The plaintiff's case was that the suit house was purchased by him on 25th August 1950 by a registered deed of sale from one Harnarayan. The original registered sale-deed Ex. P/1 was produced by the plaintiff and a copy Ex. P/1-A was kept in the record of the Court. Both the Courts below, however, dismissed the plaintiff's suit on the ground that the original registered sale-deed was not produced by the plaintiff. Held : The Courts below have thus overlooked the evidence of the plaintiff who had produced the original sale-deed Ex. P/1. The Courts below have held that the execution of the sale-deed Ex P/1 by Harnarayan was not proved. But, as held in Kalu v. Bapurao, 37 MPLC 222, evidence of due registration is itself some evidence of execution. There is no material on record for holding that Sitaram and Bhanwarlal, the judgment-debtors, had any saleable interest in the suit house. The lower appellate Court has thus erred in law in dismissing the plaintiff's suit. In view of the evidence on record the plaintiff was entitled to the decree prayed for 37 MPLC 222, relied on. Appeal allowed.