1. The District Judge clearly seems to have held that the sale to the plaintiff' was not intended to defeat creditors and, therefore, not voidable, under Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act merely because there was some consideration for the sale, and that there was an intention to really transfer the property. These circumstances are sufficient to warrant the finding of the District Judge. As was pointed out in Chidambaram Chettiar v. Sami Aiyar 6 M.L.J. 427. where a transfer, though, in part for valuable consideration, is, as regards the other part only an arrangement to defeat the creditors, it is wholly void against the creditors both under Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act and under 13 Elizabeth Chap. 5 and cannot be upheld to the extent to which it. is supported by consideration. If, therefore, the District Judge should find that the object of the sale to the plaintiff was to defeat creditors and that the plaintiff was aware of that object then the facts that there was consideration and there was an intention to transfer will not affect the question. We must, therefore, ask the District Judge to find, on the evidence on record with reference to these observations, whether the sale to the plaintiff was intended to defeat creditors and, therefore, voidable under Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act.
2. The findings should be submitted in six weeks and seven days will be allowed for filing objections.
3. We accept the finding The decree of the District Judge is reversed and the decree of the District Munsif restored with costs in this and in the lower appellate Court.