1. Petitioner seeks to revise the order of the Subordinate Judge of Palghat in E. P. No. 637 of 1925.
2. Two decrees were outstanding against petitioner, one in S. C. S. No. 132 of 1924 against her personally and against the assets of her mother; and one in S. C. S. No. 694 of 1924 against the assets only. She sold a house which apparently was her mother's own asset, and discharged the decree in S. C. S. No. 132 of 1924. The Subordinate Judge finds that this was a fraud against the decree-holder in S. C. S. No. 694 of 1924 because there is nothing left for him to proceed against. Hence the petition to revise. The learned Subordinate Judge cites no authority for holding that such payment is a fraud. His attention was drawn to Veerasokka-raju v. Papiah  26 Mad. 792 and he should have observed the general applicability of the dictum, every payment on account of a debt is perfectly lawful payment irrespective of its effect upon the other creditors. The contrary view would amount to ruling that every holder of a decree against assets has ipso facto a charge upon those assets; and the vakil for the counter-petitioner has shown a correct appreciation of the implications of the case by arguing it on the footing of subrogation. But at the time of the payment the petitioner was unfettered mistress of her own property, and could deal with it as best advised.
3. Nor can counter-petitioners claim to attach the money paid in satisfaction of the decree as being assets held by a Court. It is not as though an attaching decree-holder had sold up the mother's house, and brought the proceeds into Court awaiting orders. The judgment-debtor herself paid in the money in satisfaction of the decree which was a final discharge of her obligation, and no money can be said to have been lying to her credit so as to be liable to the counter-petitioners, attachment: cf. Kasthuri Aiyangar v. Arunachalam Chettiar  1 M. W. N. 195.
4. The petition, C. R. P. No. 726 of 1925, is allowed with costs throughout and the order of the lower Court is cancelled. Satisfaction in the decree in S. C. S. No. 132 of 1924 should, accordingly, be entered.
5. C. R. P. No. 727 of 1925 is allowed with costs.