Sundaram Chetty, J.

1. This second appeal arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiffs, for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,999-0-0 (Rupees two thousand nine hundred and ninety-nine) alleged to be due under a mortgage bond (Ex. A) dated 10th July 1929 (after relinquishing a large portion of the sum due for the reason that the hypotheca would not be worth more than the suit amount). Ex. A was executed by defendant 1 through his agent under a power-of-attorney viz., defendant 3 in favour of the deceased Shaik Dawood Rowther for Rs. 2,500 (Rupees two thousand five hundred). The mortgagee died in December 1909. He was the brother of plaintiff 1 and defendant 2, and a cousin of defendant 1. Plaintiffs 2 to 5 are the children of Shaik Dawood Rowther whose widow is plaintiff 6. The claim was resisted by defendant 1, on the ground that Ex. A was executed nominally, without any consideration, for the purpose of defrauding the creditors. The first Court dismissed the plaintiffs suit accepting defendant 1s plea as true, whereas, the lower appellate Court disagreed with the District Munsiffs view and found that Ex. A was executed by defendant 1, not as a benami or colourable transaction,