1. We agree with the learned Judges who decided the cases reported in Debendra Kumar. Mandel v. Rup Lall Dass I.L.R. (1886) C. 546 and Kasinath Das v. Sadasiv Patnaik I. L. R. (1893) C. 805
2. The object of attachment is to take the property out of the disposition of the judgment-debtor. Though the omission to attach under Section 274 of the Code of Civil Procedure was an irregularity; we are not able to hold that the irregularity was material, or that plaintiff has been prejudiced thereby.
3. It is next contended that the document contains no provision for interest post diem and that consequently the claim is one for damages and barred under Article 116 of the Limitation Act. But on the true construction of the document the last clause appears to provide for interest up to date of payment and to make the same a charge on the property; and as interest is not asked for at the enhanced rate, there is no question of reasonable compensation under Section 74 of the Contract Act, nor is the suit barred under the Limitation Act.