The main legal point established in the judgment is that a transfer intended to defeat and delay creditors, as per S.53 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, is void. The court emphasized the importance of the fraudulent nature of the transfer and its impact on the rights of creditors.

Viswanatha Iyer, J.

A.S.No. 227 of 1985 arises out of the judgment and the decree in O.S.No. 191 of 1981 on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Thrissur. We shall state the facts therein as the other two appeals actually follow in the wake of this decision. We shall refer to the parties in-the further discussion, as they are arrayed in the trial court in the suit O.S.No. 191 of 1981, for the purpose of convenience.

2. A.S.No. 227 of 1985: Defendants 2 to 4 are the appellants. They are the children of one Mannai alias Mary, the first defendant. The four plaintiffs, namely respondents 1 to 4 are the contesting parties to this appeal. The other respondents in the appeal are Mannai alias Mary, her another son, who was the third defendant and the South Indian Bank Limited, Thrissur who was the fifth defendant in the suit.

3. The suit was one under S.53 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 for a declaration that the deed of sale Ext. A9 (original of which is Ex(.B2) dated 5-10-1973 executed by the first defendant in favour of her three sons, defendants 2 to 4 was one executed with intent to defeat and delay the creditors of the first defendant and for other consequential reliefs. The four plaintiffs and their predecessor one Devassy had filed different suits O.S.Nos. 74 and 87 of 1972, 64,114 and 194 of 1973 against one St. Joseph's Trading Company and its partners, including the first defendant herein for recovery of amounts due to them. The first defendant was the sixth defendant in all those suits. The first suit by Devassy, namely O.S.No. 74 of 1972 was filed on 23-5-1972 in which he attached the suit properties herein which belonged to the first defendant on 25-5-1972. It was while the attachment was in force that the property which had an extent of 1.09 acres was sold by the first defendant to defendants 2 to 4 by Ext. B2 dated 5-10-1973 for a consideration of Rs. 12000/- of which Rs. 750/- was paid in cash, and the balance was reserved with the vendees for payment to the decree holder in O.S.No. 74 of 1972, and in case the amount was not payable, for payment to the first defendant herself. The other four suits by the plaintiffs herein followed, but without any order of attachment. All these suits were tried jointly and decreed on January 3, 1978.

4. Two other suits O.S. Nos. 3 and 4 of 1973 had been filed by the 5th defendant South Indian Bank Ltd., against the same firm and its partners for recovery of amounts due to them. Those suits were also decreed.

5. The decree in O.S.No. 74 of 1972 was put in execution. The suit property was sold and purchased by Devassy, the decree holder himself for Rs. 30000/- on 17-12-1980. Before thesale was confirmed, defendants 2 and 4 filed E.A.No. 36 of 1981 under Order 21 Rule 89 of the C.P.C, to set aside the sale after depositing the decree amount due to Devassy under the decree, and poundage. These defendants claimed right to the property under the deed of sale Ext. B2. The petition was allowed by the order Ext. AS dated 18-2-1981 and the sale set aside.

6. The plaintiffs who were the decree holders in the other four suits, namely O.S.Nos. 87 of 1972 and others could not however proceed against the property for realisation of their dues in view of the sale to defendants 2 to 4 by Ext. B2 on 5-10-1973. According to them, they came to know about the sale when they took out execution of the respective decrees and the sale in question was put forward as a defence early in January 1981. Thereupon they filed the present suit O.S.No. 191 of 1981 on April 10, 1981 alleging that the sale was a fraudulent one intended to defeat and delay the creditors of the first defendant who was also liable under the various decrees as a partner of the St.Joseph's Trading Company.

7. The first defendant in a written statement of her own contested the suit with the plea that the sale was for adequate consideration for the purpose of satisfying the decree, if any, that may be passed in O.S.No. 74 of 1972. T