Judgment :- Mohammed, J. These appeals arise from a common order passed in three claim applications, E.A.N. of. 568,569 and 570 of 1991 in execution of a decree in E.P. No. 20 of 1991 in O.S. No. 38 of 1981 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Palakkad. These applications under Order XXI Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure were filed by the appellants in these appeals, who are the wives of the judgment-debtors. The common first respondent in all the appeals is the decree-holder, who filed the suit and obtained a decree against respondents 2 to 4, who are the judgment-debtors. 2. The decree in O.S. No. 38 of 1981 was one for realisation of damages, obtained on 11.10. 1983. In execution of the said decree, properties belonged to respondents 2 to 4 were attached. The respondents 2 to 4 executed three sale deeds on 27.12.1990 in favour of the appellants. The appeal filed by respondents 2 to 3 before this court against the decree was dismissed by this court on 28.5.1990. Consequently, attachment was ordered on 3.1.1991. The judgment-debtors thereupon raised (he plea of no means and that plea was turned down and arrest was ordered against them. The revision petition filed against the said order was also dismissed by this court on 7.2.1992. The present claim petitions filed by the appellants were resisted by the decree-holder contending that the sale deeds executed by respondents 2 to 4 in favour of the appellants are sham transactions and (hey were created with fraudulent intention of defeating the decree obtained by him. He further pleaded that there was no consideration for the sale deeds executed in favour of the appellants. , 3. The learned counsel for appellants argued that the court below ought not to have applied the decision in Sultan Ahmad v. Rashid Ahmad (AIR 1990 All. 47) in the facts of this case. He further points out that the maxim 'parideclicto polio esl condition possidet is the base for the above decision but it is not applicable to the feels of the present case. 4 The expression 'In pari restcvmlitipossideniis'meaiisihaty/lkyc both parties are equally at fault the condition of the possessor (or defendant) is more favourable. 47) in the facts of this case. He further points out that the maxim 'parideclicto polio esl condition possidet is the base for the above decision but it is not applicable to the feels of the present case. 4 The expression 'In pari restcvmlitipossideniis'meaiisihaty/lkyc both parties are equally at fault the condition of the possessor (or defendant) is more favourable. When this maxim was circadian Bownuikers, Limited v. Harriet Instruments, Limited (1945(1) K.B. 65), Lord Justice Du Pareq said that the said Latin maxim "must not be under stood as meaning that where a transaction is vitiated by illegality the person left in possession of goods after its completion is always and of necessity-entitled to keep them. Its true meaning is that, where the circumstances arc such that the court will refuse to assist either party, the consequence must, i n fact, follow that the party in possession will not be disturbed." This interpretation of the maxim was approved by the Supreme Court: in Wamait Shriniwas Kini v. Ratilal Bhagwandas and Co. (AIR 1959 S.C. 689). However, Lord Mansfield said in Saufe v. Morgan (1838) 4 M & W 270) that in such cases the defendant obtains an advantage "contrary to the real justice" and,, so to say "by accident." That does not mean the court can enforce such advantage obtained in'contrary to the real justice'. "Any person who comes to seek relief from a Court of law should not be a party to a fraud, and if both parties are in pari delicate the Court should decline to help either party and let things remain as they are and let both parties reap the consequences of their own fraud and dishonesty. There is no reason why the court should help the plaintiff in preference to the defendant and give him what he did not obtain under the fraudulent transaction. The well-known principle approved of by their Lordships of the Privy Council "let the estate lie where it falls" should apply to such a case and the Courts ought not to help either party.", so observed by Sulaiman, C.J. and Bonnet J. in Nawab Singh v. Daljit Singh (AIR 1936 All. 4010. This being the true interpretation of the above maxim it cannot be applied in the present case. 5. Now let us examine the facts involved in Sultan Ahmed's case (AIR 1990 All. 47) supra. 4010. This being the true interpretation of the above maxim it cannot be applied in the present case. 5. Now let us examine the facts involved in Sultan Ahmed's case (AIR 1990 All. 47) supra. There the plaintiff filed the suit for declaration that the sale deed executed by him in favour of defendant No.1 was a fictitious transaction as well as for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with his possession. It was found that the sale deed in favour of defendant was fraudulent designed to defeat the plaintiff's creditors. Thus both plaintiff and defendant No.1 were equally guilty of the said fraudulent design. Therefore, the court said the parties are in par i. delicate and so the relief to the plaintiff was correctly denied. In the present case the main contest is between the claimants and the decree holder who attached the properties belonged to the judgment-debtors. The sale deeds were executed between the judgment-debtors and claimants and the contest is not between the purchasers and judgment debtors. Therefore, it cannot be said that the contesting parties to claim applications in the present case are in pari delicto. 6. The properties were transferred by the judgment-debtors to the appellants and. sale deeds were executed during the pendency of the decree. The transferees are none other than the wives of the judgment-debtors. They have stated that they are residing with their husbands. All the assignment deeds were executed on the same day. It is difficult to believe that the appellants were not aware of the decree obtained by the first respondent. The appeal from the decree tiled by judgment-debtors was dismissed by this court in 28.5.1990. It was there alter the sale deeds were executed on 27.12.1990. The decree holder has given evidence to prove his case. Thus it is crystalline that the assignment deeds were executed with a fraudulent intention to defeat the decree-holder. The court below, after evaluation of evidence, came to the same conclusion. It is well settled that any person who comes to seek relief from a court of law should not be a party to a fraud. "Frau's ct jus nunquam cohabitant.' Fraud and justice never dwell together. Therefore, the appellants are not entitled to any relief in these appeals. In the result, the appeals are dismissed. No order as to costs.