(1.) The plaintiff's suit is for a declaration that the sale to him by the Defendants 2 to 4 is a bona fide transaction and that the plaint property is not liable for attachment and sale in execution of a decree obtained against his vendors. The District Munsif held that: the sale deed relied on by plaintiff is not true, valid and binding on 1 defendant but it is a sham transaction unsupported by consideration and executed with a view to defraud 1 defendant of his debt and dismissed the suit. On appeal the Subordinate Judge held that the sale deed Exhibit B was a clearly colourable and fraudulent transaction and cannot prevail against 1st defendant.
(2.) The plaintiff has preferred this Second Appeal.
(3.) The only point urged by Mr. T. R. Ramachandra Ayyar for the appellant before us is that his client is entitled to a charge for the amount of consideration paid by him. Both the Courts have found that about Rs. 500 was paid by the plaintiff out of a nominal consideration of Rs. 2,000. On this finding Mr. T. R. Ramachandra Ayyar contends that his client is entitled to a charge for that amount on the property sold to him. The sale in plaintiff's favour evidenced by Exhibit B has been found to be a fraudulent one intended to defraud, defeat or delay creditors. In the face of this finding, the question is: Can the plaintiff be given the relief he asks for?