1. On the facts found we do not think that the sale to the plaintiff by Hanumanthappa was a fraudulent transaction within the meaning of Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act. It was genuine to the extent of Rs. 400 at least, and the result was that a creditor of Hanumanthappa's was paid off to that amount (see Ramasamia Pillai v. Adinarayana Pillai I.L.R. (1897) M 465.
2. We also think there was no misjoindr in this matter agreeing with the Munsif. We agree with the decision in Raghunath Mukund v. Sarosh E.R. Kama (1871) M.H.C.R. 6 and following that we hold there was no misjoinder here. The result is that we reverse the decrees of the Courts below and declare plaintiff's title to the plaint properties and cancel the attachments made by the 1st defendant. The 1sl and 2nd defendants must pay the plaintiff's costs throughout in proportion to the value of their respective properties.