VEERASWAMI C.J.:- Defendants 1 and 2 are the appellants. They purchased the suit property on 15th December 1953 from the legal representatives of one Krishnaswami Pathar. The plaintiff in execution of a decree obtained against Krishnaswami Pathar purchased the very property on 8th February 1960. The defendants having obstructed and succeeded, a suit was brought to set aside the summary order. Both the courts below have concurred in finding that the sale in favour of the defendants was a fraudulent preference within the meaning of Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act. In coming to that decision they were largely influenced by Abdul Majid Lebbai v. Papathiammal, 1961-1 Mad LJ 235 : (AIR 1961 Mad 403). They understood the decision as laying down the proposition that the test of fraudulent preference was to see whether the debtor retained with him any amount, however small, for his benefit, so that to that extent the creditors stood to be defeated. When the second appeal came before Alagiriswami J. in the first instance, he too perhaps thought that that was the effect of the decision and, on that view, he considered that the decision must be reconsidered. He, therefore,