1. The two Appeals Nos. 36 and 37 of 1918 are connected, inasmuch as they are between the same parties and the points for determination are practically the same. It appears that four persons, namely, Jwala Singh, Sabir Singh, Har Gulal Singh and Dakhla, obtained from the Revenue Courts three decrees for their share of profits against Fatta, the Lambardar. The three decrees were obtained on the 5th of May 1909, 8th of November 1910 and 28th of August 1913. On the 17th of January 1910 fatta executed a deed of gift in favour of his grandson, Budh Singh, in respect of some property. On the 11th of December 1913 Fatta executed a deed of sale in respect of the same property and some other properly in favour of his son and grandson, namely, Simru and Budh Singh. On the 7th of December 1914, two suits were filed by Jwala Singh and others against Fatta his son, his grandson and Niader. By one suit Jwala and others sought to have the deed of gift in favour of Budh Singh declared invalid and inoperative and by the other they asked the sale-deed in favour of Budh Singh and Simru to be declared invalid. The reliefs in both the suits were sought on the allegation that the transfers which were challenged by the plaintiffs were made with the object of defrauding the decrees that the plaintiffs had obtained in the Rent Court, The claims were resisted on various grounds. The Court of first instance dismissed them and the decrees of the first Court were upheld in appeal. In second appeal to this Court, the findings arrived at by the lower Appellate Court are challenged. We find on reference to the pleadings and to the evidence in both the cases that there is no allegation that, after the alienations in dispute, Fatta had no other property left to satisfy the decrees of the plaintiffs nor is there any evidence in support of such an allegation. The mere fact that Fatta gifted some property to his grandson and sold the same property with some other property to his son and grandson would not by itself render the alienation invalid. The appellant in order to succeed had to allege and to prove at least that the effect of the said alienations was to deprive him of the amount of the Rent Court's decrees. In the absence of such proof the claim of the appellant cannot succeed. We, therefore, dismiss this appeal with costs including in this Court-fees on the higher scale.