BHOLA SUNAR Vs. MADHO PRASADSAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MUNDA , defendant 2, and his son Ramji, who is not a party to this suit, obtained a money decree payable by four instalments against Lachman, defendant 3, and in execution for the last instalment had his house attached. The plaintiff Madho Prasad's objection to the attachment was dismissed and the house was. auctioned and purchased by Bhola, defendant 1. Madho Prasad brought the suit out of which this appeal arises for a declaration that the house was not liable to attachment and sale arid for possession.

(2.) THE following tabular statement of events in chronological order will be more useful than one in a narrative form:

(3.) ON the first point no sufficient reason for interference with the lower Court's finding is shown It is urged that the lower appellate Court's judgment does not seriously grapple with the point. It is, however, a confirming judgment and I think it has 'sufficiently dealt with the question. It is not suggested that though payment of consideration was made and possession was taken, as found by the lower Courts, the real object of the transaction was to defraud the creditors.