Curgenven, J.

1. The plaintiffs obtained a mortgage of the plaint property from the 1st defendant on 20-7-22. They subsequently discovered that a few days previously this defendant had sold it to his wife. They accordingly brought the suit out of which this second appeal arises to set aside the sale on the ground that it was devoid of consideration and in fraud of creditors, impleading their mortgagor and his wife, the vendee. The 1st issue raised was whether the suit was bad as not having been brought in a representative capacity. The learned Additional District Munsif decided this issue in the negative and in the result decreed the suit. This decree was affirmed on appeal by the District Court, no contest there being raised regarding the issue in question. The only ground now pressed in second appeal is that the objection againt this suit as being nonrepresentative in character should have been allowed.

2. Mr. Ramadoss for the respondent has endeavoured to show that the suit was in fact a representative one by force of an allegation in para. 4 of the plaint, that "the sale had been executed with the treacherous intention of defrauding plaintiff and other creditors". But I t