N.R.AYYANGAR, J.

(1) THIS appeal comes before us on a certificate of fitness granted by the High court of Andhra Pradesh-under Art. 133(1)(a) of the Constitution.

(2) THE following facts are necessary to be stated to apperciate the contention-, urged before us. We consider it would be convenient to refer to the parties by their array in the trial court. The 2nd defendantfirm Hajee Abdul Kadir Sahib and Lala Batcha Sahib & Co., had been apparently carrying on business in several places including Vizianagaram, Bellary, Madras etc., in skins and hides since 1941 when the partnership was formed between the 3rd and the 4th defendants. It was common ground that from about 1947 or 1948 the firm had not been doing any businesss in Vizianagaram and by that time it had contracted quite a large volume of debts, the tannery business there proving a loss. The two partners accordingly entered into a deed of dissolution dated 31/03/1949, in which it is stated that the book-debts, stock in trade, immovable properties and other assets including the goodwill of the firm were of the value of Rs. 2,90,000.00 , and at the same time that the partnership which was admitted to be suffering losses owed debts to the extent. of Rs. 2-1/2 lakhs. It was agreed between the partners that the 3rd defendant Abdul Shukoor Saheb should go out of the partnership taking with him one item of property in Vaniyambadi valued at Rs. 20,000.00 while- the suit tannery which was estimated as of the same value was to become the sole property of the 4th defendant who was described in the deed as `the continuing partner`. Soon after this deed of dissolution the 4th defendant entered into an agreement with the plaintiff for the sale to him of the suit property for a sum of Rs. 19,000.00 , and later executed the deed of sale on 20/05/1949. The plaintiff was, however, advised that it would be safer to have the conveyance in his favour executed by the other partner also and accordingly the 3rd defendant was also an executant of the sale deed. On the execution of the sale deed the plaintiff entered into possession and he claimed to have thereafter effected improvements to the property.

(3) WHILE so, the 1st defendant-Arji Papa Rao-filed suit O. S. 46 of 1950 in the court of subordinate judge at Visakhapatnam for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 12,95.00 5/8 against the 2nd defendant firm and its partners defendants 3 & 4 and obtained a decree for the sum claimed with interest and costs on 19/06/1951. Soon after filing the plaint he obtained an order for attachment before judgment of the suit property and that order was on the passing of the decree made absolute, subject however, to the result of a claim petition which had been filed by the plaintiff for raising the attachment. The Subordinate judge of Visakhapatnam dismissed the plaintiffs claim and this has led to the suit O. S. 145 of 1951 out of which this appeal arises to set aside that summary order under O. XXI, r. 63, Code of Civil Procedure. The plaintiff impleaded as parties to the suit besides the attaching decree-holder who was made the 1st defendant, the debtor-firm and the two partners as defendants 2 to 4 respectively and the son of the 4th defendant who executed the sale deed as his agent under a power of attorney as the 5th defendant.

(4) THE plaintiff claimed that he purchased the property bonafide and for its full value, that since its purchase he having entered into possession, was in enjoyment thereof in his own right, paying the rates and taxes due thereon and had effected valuable improvements thereto, and that consequently the property was not liable to be attached as belonging to the partnership or any of its partners.

(5) BROADLY stated, the defence of the 1st defendant the only contesting defendant, the others either remaining ex parte or supporting the plaintiff, was that the sale in favour of the plaintiff was either a sham and nominal transaction or in fraud of creditor