Judgment :- 1. The plaintiff in a suit on a promissory note is the appellant before me and the defendants the respondents. The suit was based on Ext. Al dated 26th May, 1950 executed by the two defendants, in favour of the plaintiff for Rs. 5,000/-. The recital of consideration in the document is for value received in cash. The defendants admitted the execution of the promissory note, but contended that it was not supported by consideration and was not therefore legally enforceable. Both the lower courts accepted the contention of the defendants and dismissed the suit and therefore the present second appeal by the plaintiff. 2. To appreciate the contention of the defendants a few facts which are not disputed before me, may be briefly stated. The 1st defendant was a trader in groceries and in 1950 his business failed and consequently he found himself unable to pay his creditors in full. Therefore a scheme of composition with the creditors was arrived at and every creditor agreed to receive 5as. 4ps. in the rupee in full satisfaction of his claim. The plaintiff's brother, by name Chandappan, was one of the creditors and he insisted that he would agree to the composition scheme only if he was paid in full and if a promissory note was executed in favour of his brother, the plaintiff, for the balance amount. A sum of Rs. 7,433-14-3 was due to Chandappan and after paying him 5 as. 4ps. in the rupee there remained a balance of Rs. 4,955-14-10. It is now practically admitted before me that the suit promissory note was executed for a round sum of Rs. 5,000/-, the actual amount being the aforesaid Rs. 4,955-14-10 due to the brother of the plaintiff. There was also an agreement between the plaintiff and the defendants under which the plaintiff agreed to defer the filing of the suit for three years. The present suit has been brought on Ext. Al for the recovery of the said amount at the close of the aforesaid terra of three years. 3. Both the lower courts have concurrently found that the promissory note was executed in favour of the plaintiff for amounts due to his brother Chandappan. They have also found that the said promissory note was not supported by legal consideration and therefore was not legally enforceable. 3. Both the lower courts have concurrently found that the promissory note was executed in favour of the plaintiff for amounts due to his brother Chandappan. They have also found that the said promissory note was not supported by legal consideration and therefore was not legally enforceable. It is those findings that are now challenged before me in second appeal by the learned advocate of the appellant. 4. It is now settled law that, if in a composition with all the creditors one of the creditors is fraudulently preferred, such an agreement is hit by S.23 of the Contract Act, as the contract is one the consideration for which is fraudulent and opposed to public policy. This was laid down in Krishnappa Chetti v. Adimula Mudali (1897) ILR. XX Madras 84 and the said decision had been followed in other decisions like Jamal Mahamad Pulayar v. Parameswara Pattar (1906) XVI MLJ. 418 and Atumal Ramoomal v. Dinchand Kessumal (AIR 1939 Sind 33). But the learned advocate of the appellant invites my attention to an old decision of the Madras High Court in Sankarappa v. Kamayya (3 Madras High Court Reports 231), wherein it was laid down, following the English law, that where there was a real transaction between the parties for valuable consideration, whether it be by way of sale or mortgage, the transaction was valid even as against a creditor, though the object might have been to defeat an expected execution. I may observe that this case is not practically of any assistance to the appellant before me. What happened in that case was that the properties of one Sundarappa were brought to sale for his debts, when he took a loan from the defendants in the suit to purchase some items in court auction. After such purchase a portion of the purchased items was given possession of to the defendants under an agreement directing them to hold the properties for twenty years and to pay themselves from the income of the properties and thus satisfy their debt. After twenty years, under the agreement, the properties were to be given back to Sundarappa. Twenty years after, Sundarappa's brothers filed the suit for recovery of possession of the properties and in that suit two objections were raised by the defendants. After twenty years, under the agreement, the properties were to be given back to Sundarappa. Twenty years after, Sundarappa's brothers filed the suit for recovery of possession of the properties and in that suit two objections were raised by the defendants. The objections were (1) that the agreement was executed with a view to defraud the creditors of Sundarappa and (2) that there was no consideration for the agreement. In considering those objections the Madras High Court laid down as hereinbefore indicated. It is clear that there was no settlement or composition with the creditors in that case and that there was a real transaction between Sundarappa and the defendants, which was supported by valuable consideration. Therefore, this decision cannot have any application to the present case. 5. Now that reference is made to the English Law on the question, it would be instructive to refer to one passage in Halsbury's Laws of England. In Halsbury, 3rd Edn., Vol. VIII, p. 129, Para.223, the following passage occurs: "Where a debtor enters into a deed of composition with his creditors, a secret agreement, whether by the debtor or a third person, to give one of the creditors an additional benefit is a fraud upon the other creditors, because each creditor consents to lose part of his debt in consideration of the others doing the same, and equality among the creditors is an implied condition of the arrangement. In such a case not only is the creditor who has entered into the secret agreement with the debtor unable to enforce the stipulation for his benefit, but the deed remains operative against him so that he loses both the right to the composition and his original debt which has been released." In the case before me, when the scheme of composition or settlement was effected, every creditor agreed to forego a portion of his claim in consideration of such an agreement by the other creditors to forego such portions of their claims as well. Therefore, the amount which is now sought to be made the consideration for the suit promissory note had already been utilised as consideration once for getting the consent of the other creditors for the composition. In that view, there is no force in the contention that the promissory note is supported by consideration. Therefore, the amount which is now sought to be made the consideration for the suit promissory note had already been utilised as consideration once for getting the consent of the other creditors for the composition. In that view, there is no force in the contention that the promissory note is supported by consideration. It is in one sense not supported by consideration and even if it is supported by consideration, the contract, being in fraud of creditors and opposed to public policy, is illegal and therefore not enforceable, as it is hit by S.23 of the Contract Act. In the aforesaid view, the second appeal has no substance and therefore it is dismissed with costs. Dismissed.