Oldfield, J.

1. On the merits the question in this appeal is whether Ex. E, an hypothecation bond in favour of plaintiff appellant by the widows of two partners, Muthu and Raman Chetty, as guardians of 1st to 4th defendants, their minor sons, is without consideration and merely colourable or was executed in the words of Section 53 Transfer of Property Act with intent to defeat or delay creditors.

2. The undisputed circumstances are that Ex. E hypothecates for its full value all the immoveable property of 1st to 4th defendants; that plaintiff is the brother of one executant the widow of Muthiah Chetty; and that of the four other creditors of the firm, whose debts plaintiff was to pay as part of the consideration, one is a dayadi of plaintiff and a cousin of the widow of Raman Chetty and another is plaintiffs partner and nephew. Plaintiff had been an agent of the firm and knew that it had been declining in prosperity since the death of Raman. Chetty in 1909. Ex. E moreover was executed just after 5th to 15th defendants, the contesting respondents, other creditors of the firm, who eventually obtained a decree against it for a little over Rs. 30,000, interest, and costs had at an