1. The District Judge finds that Exhibit A (the conveyance to the plaintiff's family) is a valid document although part of the consideration purports to have been paid was not in fact paid. We take this to be a finding that the conveyance to the plaintiff's family was a real and not a sham transaction.
2. Mr. Krishnaswami Iyer sought to argue that the conveyance was in fraud of creditors and voidable under Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act. This point was not taken in the Court of first instance and found against. It was not taken in the grounds of appeal to the lower appellate Court and there is nothing in the judgment of the District Judge--as we read it--to suggest that it was argued in the lower appellate Court. It is not open to the appellant to raise it before us in second appeal. The second appeal is dismissed with costs.