JUDGMENT : This is a second appeal by Rajmal. defendant No. 1, against the judgment of 2nd Additional District Judge, Bhopal. confirming the decree of Subordinate Judge, Ashta in civil Suit No. 63 of 1950 instituted by Moti, respondent No. 1. for declaration that the she-buffalo in dispute belonged to him and was not liable to attachment and sale in execution of the decree in. favour of Rajmal, appellant, against Shrimati Sunder respondent No. 2. 2. The facts of the case are not in dispute except for the tact whether the sale in favour of Moti was a bona fide one or not. In October 1947 Rajmal had instituted a suit against Shrimati Sunder for the recovery of a certain sum of money and under order dated 3-11-1947 two she-buffaloes including the one in dispute were attached before judgment. The attachment was made sometimes in December 1947 but this date is not apparent from the record. The suit of Rajmal was dismissed on 28-3-1948. Rajmal went up in revision before the then Bhopal High Court. I understand that the revision was moved on 6-7-1948. It was allowed under order dated 22-9-1948 with the result that the suit of Rajmal, appellant, was decreed in full. Meanwhile, on 5-7-1948 Shrimati Sunder moved an application for the release of the attached cattle which was allowed without notice to Rajmal appellant under order dated 10-7-1948. 3. It was on 24-10-1948, about one month after the revision application of Rajmal was allowed, that Shrimati Sunder sold the she-buffalo in dispute to Mod, respondent No. 1, for a sum of Rs. 50/-. About ten months afterwards, that is on 27-8-1949 the she-buffalo in dispute was re-attached in execution proceedings on the application of the decree-holder. On 3-9-1949 Moti, respondent No. 1, filed an objection under O. 21, R. 58, Civil P.C. which was rejected under order dated 31-12-1949. Thereafter he instituted a suit under O. 21 R. 63, Civil P.C. which was registered as Civil Suit No. 63 of 1950. This is a suit from which the present second appeal arises. The suit was decreed by the trial Court on 5-3-1952. Appeal against this decree was dismissed by the 2nd Additional District Judge, Bhopal, and Rajmal has come up in second appeal against this order. 4. As already observed above, only two points are in dispute. This is a suit from which the present second appeal arises. The suit was decreed by the trial Court on 5-3-1952. Appeal against this decree was dismissed by the 2nd Additional District Judge, Bhopal, and Rajmal has come up in second appeal against this order. 4. As already observed above, only two points are in dispute. Firstly, whether the sale of 24-10-1948 was made in good faith or was a fraudulent transaction in order to defeat the claims of the creditors including Rajmal. Secondly, if the attachment before judgment of the she-buffaloes should be deemed to have automatically revived after the revision application was allowed by the then Bhopal High Court. Both these points have been decided against Rajmal, defendant. 5. Under B. 101, Civil P.C., no second appeal is admissible except on the grounds mentioned in S. 100, one of which is that the decision is contrary to law. The term 'contrary to law' has not been defined in the Code, but it is a well settled law that in certain circumstances an erroneous finding of fact can amount to a decision contrary to the law. For example, if a decision is based upon no legal evidence or all available evidence was not considered or if the decision is perverse in the sense that no normal person could have arrived at that opinion, it will amount to an error of law and is not binding on the High Court. Similarly, if the first Appellate Court failed to draw the only inference possible (not one of the possible inferences) from the proved facts the High Court can interfere with the finding in Second Appeal. For reasons to be given subsequently, I am of opinion that both the trial and the first Appellate Courts had not taken into consideration certain circumstances and admissions favourable to the appellant and did not draw the only inference possible from such circumstances and admissions; and consequently this Court can consider the first point and give a finding in favour of the appellant. In these circumstances it is not necessary to express any opinion on the second point, as to the revival of the attachment before judgment of the she-buffaloes after the revision application was allowed by the then Bhopal High Court. 6. In these circumstances it is not necessary to express any opinion on the second point, as to the revival of the attachment before judgment of the she-buffaloes after the revision application was allowed by the then Bhopal High Court. 6. The case of Moti and Shrimati Sunder is that the sale in favour of Moti is a genuine one; while the present case of Rajmal is that the alleged sale is of a fraudulent nature and cannot confer any title in the purchaser. It may here be noted that in the written statement pleas were taken in the alternative viz., that no such sale had taken place and if the sale did take place it was made fraudulently for a very nominal consideration. 7. In support of their versions the contesting parties, namely Moti and Rajmal appeared in the witness box and also examined a few witnesses. As is usual in such cases the parties and their witnesses have supported the case of their respective parties. But Moti and his witness, Anokhey Lal, have made certain admissions and if they are considered in the light of the version of Rajmal, no other inference can be drawn except that the sale in favour of Moti was made fraudulently so as to cause wrongful loss to the creditors of Shrimati-Sunder. No useful purpose would thus be served by giving in detail the deposition of the various witnesses; and I would confine myself to only such circumstances and admissions as are of a conclusive nature. 8. Mohd. Khan (D.W. 2) has deposed that Shrimati Sunder had disposed of all her properties including the she-buffalo in dispute. The first Appellate Court has believed this statement of Mohd. Khan (D.W. 2). In view of the fact that Shrimati Sunder did not have the courage to appear in the witness-box to rebut this evidence, I find no reason to disagree with this finding of the lower Court. Thus it is apparent that after the then High Court of Bhopal decreed the suit of Rajmal, Shrimati Sunder disposed of all her properties. This could be with no other intention except to defraud the creditors including Rajmal appellant. 9. The she-buffalo in dispute was purchased by Moti who was resident of the same village as Shrimati Sunder. Anokhey Lal (P.W. 2) admits that Shrimati Sunder used to visit Moti both before and after the sale. This could be with no other intention except to defraud the creditors including Rajmal appellant. 9. The she-buffalo in dispute was purchased by Moti who was resident of the same village as Shrimati Sunder. Anokhey Lal (P.W. 2) admits that Shrimati Sunder used to visit Moti both before and after the sale. This would not have been unless the two were on friendly terms. Moti alleges to have purchased the she-buffalo for a sum of Rs. 50/- and in this connection has deposed that at the time of the sale the she-buffalo was young, aged 3 years, and was weak but after the sale due to grazing became fat and healthy and had become pregnant. In cross-examination he admitted that at the time of the re-attachment it was worth Rs. 300/-. Anokhey Lal gave the value of the she-buffalo at the time of the sale as Rs. 50/- but was not able to give its value at the time of re-attachment though he added that it was in a good state of health. The reason why Anokhey Lal did not give the price of she-buffalo at the time of re-attachment is not far to seek. He must have been anxious to see that his version was not in conflict with that of the plaintiff and consequently he would have been reluctant to make a statement on which he could not be sure as to what the plaintiff's case was. The conduct of Anokhey Lal can be used against the plaintiff to infer that the valuation given by Anokhey Lal cannot be accepted. Anokhey Lal was asked as to who used to graze the she-buffalo while it was with Shrimati Sunder, i.e., before the sale; and the witness has indicated his lack of knowledge. In case Shrimati Sunder did not send the she-buffalo for grazing, the witness could easily depose that the she-buffalo was throughout kept at the house and was not sent out for grazing. This would, therefore, indicate that even while the she-buffalo was with Shrimati Sunder, before the sale of 24-10-1948, it was sent out for grazing. In such a case it could not be weak and thin as alleged by Moti and his witnesses and its value at the time of the sale would have been near-about Rs. 300/-, at least Rs. 200/- as alleged by Rajmal. It is thus proved that a she-buffalo worth Rs. In such a case it could not be weak and thin as alleged by Moti and his witnesses and its value at the time of the sale would have been near-about Rs. 300/-, at least Rs. 200/- as alleged by Rajmal. It is thus proved that a she-buffalo worth Rs. 200/- was sold to Moti for a sum of Rs. 50/- only. At this place it may also be observed that Rajmal gave the value of she-buffalo at the time of the sale as Rs. 200/- but even then he was not cross-examined on this point. This would support the inference already drawn above. 10. From the above it will, therefore, appear that after the suit of Rajmal was decreed in full on 22-9-1948 Shrimati Sunder disposed of all her properties including the she-buffalo in dispute; that the she-buffalo in dispute was sold to Moti about one month after the above decision against her and in favour of Rajmal; and that the she-buffalo was purchased by Moti, a person living in the same village and friendly with her, for a nominal sum of Rs. 50/- though it was worth Rs. 200/-. When Shrimati Sunder and Moti were on visiting terms, Moti would have known of the litigation pending between Shrimati Sunder and Rajmal and also as to what finding had been given by the 'then High Court of Bhopal. In other words, before purchasing the she-buffalo Moti would have 'known that the Bhopal High Court had decided the suit in favour of Rajmal and against Shrimati Sunder. In case the she-buffalo was sold for its proper value it could be said from the side of the respondents that the sale was a bona fide one; but as already held above, the sale consideration was only Rs. 130/- when the she-buffalo was worth Rs. 200/-. This would therefore, show that either the sale did not take place or it was a bogus one in order to defraud Rajmal creditor. Such a fraudulent transaction can be set aside at the instance of the creditor whose interest had been defeated as a result of the fraudulent transaction. In the present case the transfer in favour of Moti is being challenged by the creditor whose interest had been adversely affected and consequently Rajmal would be entitled to a finding in his favour. Such a fraudulent transaction can be set aside at the instance of the creditor whose interest had been defeated as a result of the fraudulent transaction. In the present case the transfer in favour of Moti is being challenged by the creditor whose interest had been adversely affected and consequently Rajmal would be entitled to a finding in his favour. In other words, from whatever aspect the facts are looked into no other inference can be drawn except that the sale by Shrimati Sunder in favour of Moti is not binding on Rajmal, and the she-buffalo in dispute can be attached and sold in execution of the decree in favour of Rajmal and against Shrimati Sunder. Thus Moti's suit was liable to dismissal and should have been dismissed with costs of all the Courts. 11. In the end it may be observed, though at the risk of repetition, that none of the above circumstances or admissions was referred to in the judgment of the first Appellate Court; and consequently this is an additional ground for interference in second appeal. 12. The appeal is, therefore, allowed with costs of all the Courts and it is hereby ordered that the plaintiff's suit be and is hereby dismissed with costs of all the Courts. Appeal allowed.