JUDGMENT

Dunkley, J - This application raises a question of pecuniary jurisdiction of considerable importance. The plaintiff-applicant obtained a money-decree against Ma Tin and a number of other persons, and in execution of that decree attached certain immovable properties said to be worth more than Rs. 70,000. The 1st defendant-respondent firm applied for removal of attachment on the ground that the attached properties had been transferred to them by the judgment-debtors by a registered deed of sale, and the application was successful. Thereupon the plaintiff-applicant brought a suit under the provisions of Order 21, Rule 63, of the Code of Civil Procedure, for the purpose of establishing his right to attach and bring to sale these properties in execution of his decree. He valued his suit for purpose of jurisdiction at the sum of Rs. 2,213-4-0 being the amount of his decree, and brought it in the subdivisional Court of Kyaiklat. It was, however, held by the Subdivisional Court that the correct valuation for jurisdiction was the value of the properties in suit, and the the plaint was directed to be returned to be filed in the proper Court. On appeal to the District Court of Pyapon, the learned District Judge held that the proper valuation for jurisdiction was, not the value of the attaching creditor's decree, but the total value of all the decrees which had been obtained against the same judgment-debtors. In my opinion the decision of the learned Subdivisional Judge was correct and that of the learned District Judge was plainly wrong. In the case of R.R.O.O. Chettyar Firm v. Ma Sein Yin 1928 Rang. 1, it was held that a creditor whose attachment has been raised, and who avails himself of the right given by Order 21, Rule 63, of the Code, can sue on his own behalf alone for having the alienation declared void, without mention of any other creditors or their debts; but in view of the provisions of Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act, as substituted by the Amending Act of 1929 this decision is no longer good law. The 4th clause of Sub-section (1) of Section 53 is in the following terms:

A suit instituted by a creditor (which term includes a decree-holder whether he has or has not applied for execution of his decree) to avoid a transfer on the ground that it has been made with intent to defeat or delay the creditors of the transferor, shall be instituted on behalf of, or for the benefit of, all the creditors.

2. Consequently, it is quite clear that when a suit is brought under the provisions of Order 21, Rule 63 of the Code of Civil Procedure, by an attaching creditor to establish, his right to attach and bring to sale certain property, and in order to succeed it is necessary to avoid a transfer of the property on the ground that the transfer has been made with intent to1 defeat or delay the creditors of the transferor, or, as it is stated in the plaint in this particular suit, that the transfer "is collusive, sham and benami", the suit must be brought in the form of a representative suit on behalf of or for the benefit of all the creditors of the transferor, and the pro-visions of Order 1, Rule 8, of the Code of Civil Procedure, will be applicable to such a suit. The transferee and the judgment-debtors as transferors will be necessary defendants in such a suit. In the present case the suit was properly brought as a representative suit, and the procedure laid down in Order 1, Rule 8, of the Code of Civil Procedure was correctly adopted. The question then arises as to what is the proper valuation of such a suit for the purpose of jurisdiction, and to my mind the answer is plain, and that is that the valuation for jurisdiction must be value of the properties transferred. It obviously cannot be the amount on the decree sought to be executed, for if the suit is successful, then the decision will be res judicata and the transfer will be declared void not only in favour of the attaching creditor, but in favour of all other existing