Separate suit will not lie.

The appeal is against the order in I.A. No. 302 of 1987 in O.S. No. 53 of 1987 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli. The application before the Court below was one under O. XXI, R. 58, read with O. XXXVIII, R. 8, Civil P.C. The prayer was to release the scheduled property from attachment made by the Court in I.A. No. 220 of 1987 in O.S. No. 53 of 1987. The suit was filed by the 1st respondent herein against the husband of respondent 2, and father of respondents 3 and 4 for recovery of amounts due to the 1st respondent. Pending suit, an attachment was sought with reference to the property, which is now in question, by the 1st respondent.

2. The case of the appellant is that the property in question was sold to her on 12-7-1985 for valuable consideration of Rs. 45, 000/- by the 2nd respondent in the Court below under a registered sale deed. Respondents 2 to 4 herein are the legal representatives of the 2nd respondent in the Court below, who died during the pendency of proceedings. The claim petition was contested by the 1st respondent-Bank on the ground that the sale alleged by the appellant herein was not a genuine one and it was only in fraud of creditors.

3. The Court below has, after considering the evidence adduced by the appellant, come to the conclusion that the sale was in fraud of creditors and the appellant was not a bona fide purchaser. Consequently, the application filed by the appellant was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

4. On a perusal of the evidence adduced on the side of the appellant and the order of the Court below, I am convinced that the view taken by the Court below is well founded and there is no justification for interfering with the order of the Court below.

5. The appellant has examined herself as P.W. 1 in the application. In the cross-examination, she stated that she did not know anything about the transaction, that one Velayutha Ganesan got the property for her and it was only through him, the negotiation was concluded. She stated that nobody else knew about the sale. It was also her evidence that excepting herself, Velayutha Ganesan and deceased Subramania Moopanar, nobody else knew about the transaction. According to her evidence, she gave the money only to Velayutha Ganesan and she did not pay the money directly to Subramania Moopanar. Admittedly, she did not ask for any receipt from him in acknowledgment of the payment. It was also stated that she had paid Rs. 22, 000/- in dribblets on several dates. She did not have any account with regard to payments. According to her, she had calculated the same mentally. It was also her evidence that she did not know who Subramania Moopnar was till she paid Rs. 22, 000/- She admitted that she did not go to the Sub Registrar's Office and that no money was paid before the Sub Registrar. She did not know who attested the document. She claimed that the property was let out to Subramania Moopnar, after she purchased the same from him. But she admitted that the rent was collected only through Velayutha Ganesan and there was no agreement to prove the tenancy. She claimed that Velayutha Ganesan used to bring the rent and take receipts from her for the payment of rent. She did not know whether Velayutha Ganesan had handed over the receipts of Subramania Moopanar. She did not know as to whether the prior mortgagee, by name Muthu, had given any receipt. She admitted that she did not file any receipt received from Muthu. She stated that Velayutha Ganesan might have filed the receipts. According to her, Velayutha Ganesan is her younger sister's husband. She deposed that she did not know whether Velayutha Ganesan was the nephew of Subramania Moopanar. According to her, she did not know who were all related to Velayutha Ganesan and that she knew only that Velayutha Ganesan was her sister's husband. Strangely she deposed that her husband Nallamuthu Moopanar did not know anything about the purchase. According to