Judgment:- Second defendant is the appellant. The first defendant is the son of the second defendant; and he has remained ex parte throughout.

2. The suit was for setting aside the order of the District Munsif, Karur, passed in E.A. No. 388 of 1966 in O.S. No. 5 of 1965. O.S.No.5 of 1965 was a suit to recover debts due on promissory notes, filed by the first respondent herein against the first defendant in the suit, viz., second respondent herein. On 31st May,1965 the first respondent obtained a decree for Rs. 781.28. On 22nd March,1966 he filed E.P. No. 217 of 1966 for attaching the half share of the first defendant in the suit property and for selling the same. On 5th July, 1966, attachment was effected. At that stage, the appellant herein, who is the second defendant, filed E.A. No. 388 of 1966 under Order 21, rule 58, Civil Procedure Code, for raising the attachment, claiming the property as his own. This claim the appellant put forth on the basis of Exhibit B-1, dated 24th November, 1964, which is a registered release deed executed by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant after getting Rs. 2,000 from the second defendant. The District Munsif allowed E.A. No. 388 of 1966 holding that the release is valid and accordingly raised the attachment on 13th September, 1966.

3. Aggrieved by the said decision, the first respondent herein filed O.S. No. 972 of 1966 for setting aside the summary order passed in E.A.No. 388 of 1966. No doubt the prayer in that plaint was to set aside the summary order in E.A.No. 388 of 1966. But the main contention of the first respondent in the plaint was that Exhi-but B-1 is a false and colourable transaction brought about to defraud the first respondent, and was not supported by any true and valid consideration.

4. The trial Court set aside the order in E.A.No.388 of 1966 holding that Exhibit B-1 is a frauduelnt document. Aggrieved by the said decision, the second defendant preferred an appeal. The Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirapalli, dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the decision of the Courts below, the second defendant has preferred the above second appeal

5. Thiru V. Venkataraman, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, submitted that Exhibit B-1 is a genuine document and was bona fide executed by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant, that the suit as framed has to be construed as one filed under section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act, and that as such the same has to be dismissed in view of the fact that it has not been filed in a representative capacity for all the creditors concerned.

6. Thiru D. K. Srinivasagopalan, the learned Counsel for the first respondent, submitted that the release deed Exhibit B-1 is a false document, that in any event the same cannot be construed as a "trans-fer" of property in order to attract section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act and that if so the suit is independent of section 53 and as such it need not be filed in a representative capacity for all the creditors. He also brought to my notice the provisions of section 25 (d) and section 41 of the Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act, and submitted that the suit was merely to set aside the summary order as per the provisions of Order 21, rule 63, Civil Procedure Code, and not for any declaration as envisaged in section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act. Such type of suits are contemplated independent of the provisions in section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act, by the provisions in sections 25 (d) and 41 of the Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act.

7. The contention of Thiru V. Venkataraman, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, that the release deed Exhibit B-1 is valid, has been found against by both the Courts below. Thiru Venkataraman, submitted that the Courts below have not discussed Exhibits B-2 to B-7 for the purpose of coming to the conclusion that Exhibit B-1 was acted upon and that the second defendant was enjoying the property in his own right. In m

Click Here to Read the rest of this document