Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.

1. The decision in this appeal turns on the answer to be given to a question of law, but in order to understand the question it is necessary to set out the facts, which are of a complicated nature.

2. On the 2nd July, 1925, one Krishna Aiyar sold to his brother Venkatachalapathi Aiyar a house in Dindigul town. Some eight months later Venkatachalapathi Aiyar executed a deed purporting to release his ownership of the property in favour of his brother Krishna Aiyar. The reason for this transaction is apparent. Venkatachalapathi Aiyar was in financial difficulties and he wanted to prevent the property falling into the hands of his creditors. In the course of the year he was adjudicated an insolvent and it is not a matter for surprise that the Official Receiver thought fit to take steps to obtain an order of the Court setting aside the deed under which Venkatachalapathi Aiyar purported to revest the title in his brother. On the 10th July, 1930, the Insolvency Court held that this was a sham transaction and cancelled the deed. This meant that the title to the property vested in the Official Receiver, as representing the estate of Venkatachalapathi Ai