(i) What is the legal effect and consequences of a declaration that the transfer of property is voidable under Sec.53 of the T.P. Act?

(ii) Does that declaration wipe out the transaction or sale under the deed?

(iii) Does the transfer in question become void for all purposes or is it only void against the creditors of the transferor?

(iv) Does the transfer continue to be valid for all other purposes?

(v) Can a party to the fraud plead his own fraud to seek indulgence of the Court; can he take advantage from his own such pleadings?

These are the questions that sparked off from the issues debated at the Bar in this case.

2. The revision petitioner is the decree holder and the respondents are the judgment debtors in E.P.No.11/2003 and E.P.No.23/2004 in O.S.No.56/1999 on the files of the Subordinate Judge, Ottapalam. The decree holder is the son of the 1st judgment debtor as well as brother of judgment debtors 2 to 5. The above Original Suit was one for realisation of Rs.4,19,190/-with interest from the judgment debtors/defendants and the suit was decreed as prayed for.

3. The brief facts, necessary for disposal of this revision petition, can be summarised as follows:

Originally, the Federal Bank filed O.S.No.52/1987 against one Raman, the father of the decree holder, the judgment debtors 2 to 5 as well as husband of the 1st judgment debtor, for realisation of the loan amount availed by him. Pending the suit, Sri. Raman died and the decree holder and the judgment debtors herein got impleaded in the said suit as legal representatives. The suit was decreed and in execution, the Bank sought for attachment and sale of the properties belonging to Raman. The decree holder herein has come forward and discharged the decreetal liability, to the Bank for all the legal heirs and got the properties released. Thereafter, the decree holder filed this suit for realising the due contribution of the judgment debtors herein towards Raman's liability, which had been discharged by him alone. The suit was decreed allowing the decree holder to realise Rs.4,19,190/- plus 6% interest from the assets of the deceased Raman, in the possession of the judgment debtors. It is that decree which the decree holder seeks, to be executed, by the sale of four items of properties in E.P.No.11/2003 and another one item in E.P.No.23/2004, alleging them to be the properties of Raman and now in the possession of the judgment debtors.

4. The judgment debtors resisted the Execution Petitions contending as follows: There is no personal decree against them. The decree is for realising the amount from the properties left by the deceased Raman and possessed by them; but they, along with the decree holder, had already sold out the scheduled properties for discharging certain liabilities left by the deceased Raman and that the scheduled properties sought to be proceeded against are not at all in their possession and the properties are in the possession of third parties.

5. In enquiry, Exts.A1 to A3 were produced and marked on the side of the decree holder and Exts.B1 to B6 were produced and marked on the side of the judgment debtors.

6. After analysing the evidence on records, the Execution Court dismissed the suit on a finding that the properties sought to be sold in execution for realization of the decree are not there with the judgment debtors and the properties had already been sold away by the decree holder and the judgment debtors together, even prior to the suit.

7. Heard both sides. Sri. T. Sethumadhavan, the learned counsel for the petitioner/decree holder, advanced arguments assailing the findings whereby the court below dismissed the application. On the other hand, Sri. P.B. Krishnan, the learned counsel for the respondents/judgment debtors advanced arguments to justify the said findings in the impugned order. The points canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner is seen set up on Exts.A1 to A3. Exts.A1 to A3 are the orders dismissing the claims fil