The attachment of the property was deemed to be withdrawn upon the payment of the amount decreed, and the transfer of the property to the plaintiff was not void.

Kotval, A J C—Munda, defendant 2, and his son Ramji, who is not a party to this suit, obtained a money decree payable by four instalments against Lachman, defendant 3, and in execution for the last instalment had his house attached. The plaintiff Madho Prasad's objection to the attachment was dismissed and the house was. auctioned and purchased by Bhola, defendant 1. Madho Prasad brought the suit out of which this appeal arises for a declaration that the house was not liable to attachment and sale arid for possession.

2. The following tabular statement of events in chronological order will be more useful than one in a narrative form:

11-4-22 - Decree against Lachman.

13-9-23 - Application for execution in respect of the second instalment.

28-9-23 - Attachment of the house in suit.

24-3-24 - Private sale to the plaintiff by Lachman.

5-4-24 - Date (fixed for sale in execution) on which the plaintiff paid the amount sought to be realized to the sale officer.

15-4-24 - Fourth instalment fell due.

17-4-24 - Application for execution in respect of the fourth instalment (the third was satisfied in the interval). ,

23-4-24 - Attachment in respect of the fourth instalment ordered.

9-5-24 - Execution case in respect of second instalment struck off as fully satisfied and the house released.

20-8-24 - The plaintiff's objection to the attachment, dated 28th April 1924 in respect of the fourth instalment disallowed.

28-11-24 - House sold in auction.

25-7-25 - The present suit was filed.

3. Three points were raised in this Court by the defendants against whom the decision went in the lower Courts:

(1) that the sale to the plaintiff was not a genuine transfer but was intended to defraud Lachman's creditors;

(2) that the sale was void as the house was under attachment at its date;

(3) that Ramji not having been joined as a party the suit should have been dismissed.

4. On the first point no sufficient reason for interference with the lower Court's finding is shown It is urged that the lower appellate Court's judgment does not seriously grapple with the point. It is, however, a confirming judgment and I think it has 'sufficiently dealt with the question. It is not suggested that though payment of consideration was made and possession was taken, as found by the lower Courts, the real object of the transaction was to defraud the creditors.

5. As to the second point : it is admitted that if the attachment of 28th September 1923 had terminated before the 17th April 1924, when the application for execution of the decree in respect of the fourth instalment was made, it would not have helped the appellant, but it is urged that the attachment of the 28th September 1923 continued at least till its withdrawal on the 9th May 1924, and that the second application was no more than an application to continue that attachment. Under Order 21, Rule 55, Civil P.C., however, the attachment must be deemed to be withdrawn on the 5th April 1924 when the payment in respect of which the attachment was effected was made. It could not enure in respect of the fourth instalment which had not then become due.

6. It is argued that under Order 21, Rule 55, the condition on which the attachment is to be deemed to be withdrawn is the payment into Court of the amount decreed, that is, the whole of the amount decreed, and consequently the attachment of ''the 28th September 1923 enured till all the instalments were paid into Court. In my opinion, in the case of an instalment decree the installment which as become due and in respect of which attachment has been made is the ''amount decreed,'' in Rule 55. The claim in respect of the fourth instalment was not a claim enforceable under the attachment of the 28th September 1923, and the transfer to the plaintiff of the property attached is not void under Section 64, Civil P.C. as against it. I am moreover satisfied fronj5 defendant 1's conduct on 9th May 1924 and subsequently that he intended to put an end to that attachment, and not to continue i