Venkataramana Rao, J.

1. This second appeal arises out of a suit filed under Order 21, Rule 63, Civil P.C., by the plaintiffs for a declaration that they are entitled to sell the properties in suit in execution of a decree obtained by them in O.S. No. 371 of 1919 on the file of the District Munsif of Valangiman against defendant 2s father and that the deed of sale executed by defendant 2s mother as guardian dated 17th August 1927 in favour of defendant 1 is a sham and nominal transaction executed with a view to defeat and defraud their rights. The plaintiffs also attacked the deed on the ground that it was executed during the pendency of a subsisting attachment issued in execution of their decree. The sale deed in favour of defendant 1 was for a sum of Rs. 8000, part thereof, namely, Rs. 6500 represented the amount due under a mortgage in his favour, dated 25th October 1921, executed by defendant 2s father and the balance Rs. 1500 represented in part the amount due under a promissory note dated 7th November 1921, also executed in his favour by defendant 2s father. Both the lower Courts took the view that the alienation was not invalid on the ground that it was made during th