Judgment :- 1. There is no merit in this civil revision petition. The decree-holder attached the property which belonged to one of the defendants who was a partner in the partnership firm. When that partner died, her legal representative was brought on record. The contention of the husband of the deceased, namely the 4th defendant in the suit was that the property had been gifted to him even before the filing of the suit by his wife under Ex. B1 dt. 25-2-1982. The decree holder countered it by saying that the transfer by way of gift was in fraud of creditors and it was not valid and at any rate it will not prevent the decree holder from proceeding against the property. 2. The petitioners herein contended before the court below that it is not open to the decree holder to challenge the validity of the transaction in this execution proceedings; but the decree holder must file a separate proceeding for that purpose. That was negatived by the court below. It is not that question which is now argued before me. 3. On merits, the court below found that the transaction was clearly with a view to defeat and delay the creditor. R.W.1 admitted in the course of his deposition that on the date of Ex. B1 gift deed, a sum of Rs. 2,57,000 was due to the Bank in the account in question and a sum of Rs. 1,47,000 was due on another account to the bank. Thus a sum of nearly four lakhs of rupees was due to the bank on the date of Ex. B1. It is admitted that the deceased had no other property and the other partners of the firm did not own any property at all. So the only property which was owned by one of the partners was gifted after the debt was incurred. It is quite obvious that the transaction was with a view to delay and defeat the creditor. The finding arrived at by the court below on the basis of the admissions made by R.W.1 and also on the facts and circumstances of the case is unassailable. I therefore accept the finding and hold that the transaction under Ex. B1 is only to delay and defeat the creditor. 4. The finding arrived at by the court below on the basis of the admissions made by R.W.1 and also on the facts and circumstances of the case is unassailable. I therefore accept the finding and hold that the transaction under Ex. B1 is only to delay and defeat the creditor. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that S. 53 of the Transfer of Property Act requires that the creditor, who seeks to challenge the transaction, must do it in his representative capacity on behalf of other creditors. Admittedly there is no other creditor even as on date excepting the decree-holder. But according to learned counsel for the petitioners the term ‘creditors’ will include ‘future creditors’ as well and that therefore it is necessary that the decree holder should fight the transact ion in a representative capacity. There is no substance in this argument. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners would only mean that the debtor would hereafter borrow and the decree holder as on date should represent such creditors also. This contention has only to be stated to be rejected. 5. In the result, the civil revision petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed. There will be no order as to costs