Venkatasubba Rao, J.

1. The question which this Letters Patent Appeal raises is an important one, and the facts divested of all that is immaterial, may be shortly stated. The first defendant filed a suit against defendants 7 and 8, got their properties attached before judgment and obtained a decree in 1923 in due course. Defendants 7 and 8 sold in 1924 under Ex. A the properties in question to the second defendant. In the sale-deed the vendors (that is, defendants 7 and 8) disclosed the attachment that, had been effected and undertook to get the properties sold released from the attachment. In 1925, by virtue of a transaction we need not go into, the first defendant, to whom about Rs. 5,000 was due under his decree, received in full satisfaction of his claim Rs. 4,500 (that is, the concurrent finding of the Courts below accepted by Varadachariar, J.), in pursuance of an agreement with the judgment-debtors, namely, defendants 7 and 8. In 1927 the plaintiff obtained a mortgage of the suit property from the second defendant. Though the first defendants decree was fully satisfied as stated above, he failed to enter up satisfaction and fraudulently proceeded to execute the decree