JUDGMENT A. Banerji, J. - This is an appeal by one of the defendants. Bansidhar and six others had filed a suit for injunction restraining the defendants No. 2 and 4 from interfering with the plaintiff's possession over the plot in suit after cancellation of the sale deed dated 17th March, 1967 in Execution Case No. 162 of 1966 of the Court of Munsif Shahganj, Jaunpur. This suit was brought to cancel the auction sale dated 17th March 1967 on the ground that the property in plots No. 69-A and 69-B did not vest in the judgment-debtor on the date of auction and at any time as the plaintiffs had been owners thereof since 29th March, 1965. This fact was admitted in the compromise filed in original suit No. 18 of 1966 and also in the sale deed dated 25th May, 1966. They also claim that they have been in possession of the land in suit. It was also alleged that the above suit No. 18 of 1966 was a collusive suit between the defendants 1, 2 and 3 and consequently any decision therein was void and invalid and not binding on the plaintiffs. It was also stated that the attachment before judgment was not made in accordance with law and as such there was no attachment in the eye of law. The entire proceedings in original suit No. 18 of 1966 upto the time of auction and delivery of possession were kept secret from the plaintiffs and hence also not binding on them. The suit was contested by Smt. Kalawati alone. Her case was that she was a bona fide purchaser for value without notice in the auction sale dated 17th March, 1967. The sale had been confirmed by the Executing Court and possession was also delivered to her according to law. The plaintiffs had knowledge of the entire proceedings and the proceedings were not collusive. It was further stated that the sale deed dated 29th March, 1965 was fraudulent and never acted upon. All the pleas of the defendant were rejected and the suit was decreed as prayed by the trial court on 17-12-1969. 2. An appeal against the above judgment and decree was filed by Smt. Kalawati and two other defendants Uma Shanker and Chandra Bali Sharma. A variety of pleas were taken. All the pleas of the defendant were rejected and the suit was decreed as prayed by the trial court on 17-12-1969. 2. An appeal against the above judgment and decree was filed by Smt. Kalawati and two other defendants Uma Shanker and Chandra Bali Sharma. A variety of pleas were taken. The lower appellate court recorded that there was a valid sale deed dated 29th March, 1965 in favour of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs were the Bhumidhars of the land in suit and were in possession thereof. The defendants 2 and 4 were never in possession of the laud in suit. A further finding was that the entire proceedings in suit No. 18 of 1966 in the Court of Munsif, Shahganj, Jaunpur brought by Chandrabaii Sharma, against Uma Shankar for recovery of money on the basis of promissory note were collusive. The auction sale in pursuance to the decree in that suit was also held to be ineffective. The various pleas taken to challenge the attachment before judgment were also negatived. 3. In this appeal Pt. G. P. Bhargava, learned counsel for the appellant stated that the appellant Smt. Kalawati was a third party auction purchaser and her rights could not be set aside by the plaintiffs who were outsiders on ground of fraud. He referred to three decisions in the cases of Zainul Abdin v. Mohd. Asghar Khan (ILR 10 Allahabad 168); Manilal v. Ganga Prasad, (AIR 1951 Alld. 832) and Janak Raj v. Gurdial Singh ( AIR 1967 SC 608 ). Having heard the learned counsel for the parties I am satisfied that the contention raised by the learned counsel is without substance in view of the finding that the plaintiffs had obtained title and possession over the land in suit on 29th March, 1965. The subsequent sale deed in favour of the appellant by a person who had no title, conveyed no rights to her. There is a clear finding that Uma Shankar had no rights to be conveyed in the property on 26th May, 1966. The lower appellate court has stated in great detail the manner and the mode in which a fraud was committed to bring forth a case that Uma Shanker had retained rights over the land. There is a clear finding that Uma Shankar had no rights to be conveyed in the property on 26th May, 1966. The lower appellate court has stated in great detail the manner and the mode in which a fraud was committed to bring forth a case that Uma Shanker had retained rights over the land. The lower appellate court has given ample reasons for discarding the evidence on the point and for holding that Smt. Kalawati had acquired no right over the land in suit by virtue of the sale deed in her favour. The cases cited by the learned counsel for the appellant were of no assistance in view of the facts of the present case. 4. The second contention of the learned counsel was that the sale deed dated 26-5-1966 was not vitiated. This again is without substance. The lower appellate court has given ample reasons to hold that this sale deed conveyed no title at all for the vendor had no title himself. 5. The third question raised was that the attachment before judgment was not invalid. Learned counsel contended that there was a presumption of validity in such acts. It proceeded on the argument that there was an attachment before judgment and thereafter there was an auction sale of the property. The finding of the court below is that the attachment was invalid. This contention is that the attachment was invalid. This contention is again without any force, The finding does not suffer from any error of law. The lower appellate court has given adequate reasons to hold that the attachment was-invalid and not in accordance with law. Since the entire proceedings in the suit No. 18 of 1966 were vitiated the attachment before judgment was also invalid. I find no merits in this point as well. 6. Having considered the material on record I am fully satisfied that the court below has appreciated the correct legal position, has drawn the correct inference from the facts and has decided the appeal correctly and in accordance with law. Therefore, there exists no ground for interfering with the findings of fact and the decision arrived at by the court below. The appeal has no merits and it must be dismissed with costs. I order accordingly.