JUDGMENT : 1. It is against dismissal of a claim petition, the owner of the property came up in appeal. Claim petition was preferred under Order XXI Rule 58 C.P.C. during the pendency of the suit as against 'attachment before judgment' over the property under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 C.P.C.. 2. It is an admitted case that even prior to the 'attachment before judgment', the property was transferred by the defendant to the claimant almost seven months prior to the order of 'attachment before judgment'. The questions came up for consideration before the trial court are whether the document of transfer, Ext.A1 would stand hit by Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act and whether the appellant/ claimant has got right, title and interest over the property attached. Interestingly, the extent of jurisdiction that can be exercised under Rule 58 of Order XXI C.P.C. was not taken up or considered by the trial court. 3. The very case advanced by the plaintiff is that the document of transfer – Ext.A1, which is the subject of 'attachment before judgment', though executed seven months prior to the attachment, being a fraudulent transfer intended to defeat and delay the creditors of the defendant, would stand voidable at the option of any of the creditors by virtue of Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act. A Full Bench of this Court in Verizon Builders and Developers Ltd. v. Jyothi Susan John ( 2019 (1) KLT 100 (F.B.)) had laid down the legal position that it is permissible under Order XXI Rule 58 C.P.C. to go into the application of Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act and to adjudicate the dispute either by way of a claim petition or objection to the attachment already effected in the trial stage or at the execution stage. 4. The claimant purchaser has no blood relation or any other relation with the seller defendant except the fact that both of them belonged to the very same community. The transfer was effected by way of an assignment deed (sale deed) enumerating the consideration at Rs.35 lakhs. According to the plaintiff, the said document would stand vitiated being a fraudulent transfer intended to defeat the creditors of the defendant and it is a collusive one. It was also submitted that there is no consideration for the said document and the consideration stated in the document is fictitious. According to the plaintiff, the said document would stand vitiated being a fraudulent transfer intended to defeat the creditors of the defendant and it is a collusive one. It was also submitted that there is no consideration for the said document and the consideration stated in the document is fictitious. In the document, an amount of Rs.23,93,000/-(Rupees Twenty Three Lakhs Ninety Three Thousand only) was adjusted towards sale consideration on the assertion that it is the outstanding amount due to the claimant/purchaser from the defendant. Out of the balance sale consideration, an amount of Rs.8,57,000/-was reserved with the claimant/purchaser for discharging the bank liability over the property, thereby an amount of Rs.32,50,000/- was adjusted out of the total sale consideration of Rs.35 lakhs and a cheque for the balance sale consideration, which comes to Rs.2,50,000/-was given in lieu of cash. All these were made mentioned in the document. But no evidence was adduced to show even the encashment of the cheque for Rs.2,50,000/-. There is also no evidence for the outstanding amount alleged by the claimant/purchaser made mentioned in the document, which comes to Rs.23,93,000/-(Rupees Twenty Three Lakhs Ninety Three Thousand only). In fact, no amount was paid in cash or through transfer of account or through any bank account as on the date of alleged sale or just prior to it. There is only a claim and assertion in the document with respect to the outstanding amount to the purchaser/claimant from the defendant to the tune of Rs.23,93,000/-. It is for that amount, with an amount of Rs.2,50,000/-covered by a cheque, the sale deed was executed in favour of the claimant/purchaser with the outstanding liability with the bank which was agreed to be discharged by the purchaser/claimant. It is for that purpose, an amount of Rs.8,57,000/-was reserved. This would show that except a negligible part of sale consideration which comes to less than 7% of the agreed sale consideration, the rest of the amount was adjusted as outstanding liability, besides the amount reserved for discharging the bank liability. Certain peculiar characters were also brought to the notice of this Court that the outstanding amount adjusted towards sale consideration figured at Rs.23,93,000/-to suit the outstanding bank liability of Rs.8,57,000/-so as to arrive at a rounded figure of Rs.32,50,000/-. Certain peculiar characters were also brought to the notice of this Court that the outstanding amount adjusted towards sale consideration figured at Rs.23,93,000/-to suit the outstanding bank liability of Rs.8,57,000/-so as to arrive at a rounded figure of Rs.32,50,000/-. It is quite abnormal and cannot be swallowed without a pinch of salt that the amount stated to be due from the defendant is having an exact figure which would constitute a rounded figure when added with the bank liability. A conscious attempt to figure out an amount so as to get a rounded figure with the bank liability covering almost more than 93% of the agreed sale consideration is well evident and it is an indication that what is figured out at Rs.23,93,000/-as the outstanding amount from the debtor/transferor is fictitious, made as part of the alleged fraud in getting Ext.A1 document executed and registered. The way in which the things were arranged so as to get a rounded figure of Rs.32,50,000/-and a token amount included by way of a cheque for Rs.2,50,000/-would speak volumes with respect to the fictitious character of the alleged outstanding amount and hence it cannot be acted upon, unless there is cogent evidence to show the contrary with its extent at the time when the document was executed. The amount stated under the cheque comes to only less than 7% of the agreed sale consideration and it is only a token amount brought up so as to appear that the entire consideration stated in the document is genuine. The 4th respondent had earlier opted to file a suit against the claimant/purchaser alleging the circumstances under which the document – Ext.A1 happened to be executed in his favour. In fact, for the outstanding amount due, there is no satisfactory evidence much less any evidence except the assertion made in the document, which is under challenge. Since consideration is not a term of contract, a mere incorporation of passing of consideration would not itself amount to proof of it, though it may have its own legal impact to the parties to the document. But in so far as a creditor of transferee is concerned, there should be acceptable and cogent evidence in that behalf, otherwise, it cannot be acted upon. But in so far as a creditor of transferee is concerned, there should be acceptable and cogent evidence in that behalf, otherwise, it cannot be acted upon. A document of conveyance executed by adjusting an existing liability towards sale consideration would fall under the mischief of “fraudulent transfer” under Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act, when it was executed with the knowledge of other outstanding liability with other creditors and having the effect of either delaying or defeating in whole or in part a decree that may be passed in favour of any of such creditors. Then the only question remains for consideration is whether the claimant/purchaser is a bonafide purchaser for consideration. The term “good faith” engrafted under the second part of Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act stands for utmost good faith and the term “consideration” stands for entire consideration stated in the document and not for any part or portion thereof and it should reflect the actual value of the property and shall not be unconscionable. At the time of alleged sale under Ext.A1, there was an existing bank liability over the property for which amount was reserved with the purchaser out of the sale consideration. It is the residential property of the defendant. It has also come out in evidence that he was in a financial crisis at the relevant time and owes various amount to several persons including the plaintiff. The fact that a fictitious figure was adopted as outstanding amount so as to suit the same with the bank liability in order to get a rounded figure covering almost 93% of the sale consideration stated in the document would suggest the falsity and fictitious nature of the outstanding liability. The sale consideration comes to Rs.35 lakhs, out of which Rs.32,50,000/-was adjusted by the abovesaid assertion/declaration and only a token amount of Rs.2,50,000/-was given by way of a cheque so as to appear that the document is supported by “consideration”. A wilful attempt to assign a genuine appearance to the “consideration” made mentioned in the document is so explicit from the abovesaid facts. 5. A wilful attempt to assign a genuine appearance to the “consideration” made mentioned in the document is so explicit from the abovesaid facts. 5. The term “good faith” and “for consideration” engrafted under Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act as discussed earlier should be understood not only in relation to the consideration passed or any part thereof, but also in relation to the existing liability of the seller which was within the notice of the purchaser or capable of taking notice thereof coupled with any failure to exercise due diligence. It must also show that it was not in derogation of any subsisting liability with any creditor and it will not either delay or defeat a decree that may be passed in favour of any of the creditors. Incorporation of fictitious amount under the guise of any outstanding debt or prior liability and its adjustment towards consideration either in part or in full, would vitiate the document of transfer and bring the same under the mischief of fraudulent transfer as the term “consideration” under Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act stands for the whole consideration and not for in part. When there is evidence that the document is supported by partly fictitious and partly genuine consideration, the entire document would fall within the sweep of “fraudulent transfer”, but subject to the recourse available to the purchaser in relation to part of genuine consideration passed under the document. In fact, for the amount covered by the cheque, there is no evidence for encashment except the assertion made in the document and no attempt was made by the claimant in that behalf. Even if it is found that the amount of Rs.2,50,000/-covered by cheque was encashed, it is only a part of consideration agreed into and no presumption can be drawn with respect to payment of the rest of consideration especially when it constitutes 97% of the consideration agreed into. When it was brought out that at least some portion of the consideration is fictitious and not genuine, the document would fall within the mischief of “fraudulent” document for the purpose of Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act. 6. When it was brought out that at least some portion of the consideration is fictitious and not genuine, the document would fall within the mischief of “fraudulent” document for the purpose of Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act. 6. But, at the same time, the scope of Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act should be analysed so as to ascertain to what extent, it would make a document of transfer voidable, i.e. to the extent of defeating or delaying the creditors of transferor. Section 53 of Transfer of Property Act and the language employed therein would amply make the legal position clear that the document would stand voidable at the option of any of the creditor so defeated or delayed, which stands for in reference to any of the creditors who had been defeated or delayed and also a creditor who may be defeated or delayed. The corollary is that when there is no such defeat or delay, there may not be any application of Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act and the document though intended to defeat or delay the creditors of transferor would stand valid. Further, the document would stand voidable only to the extent of liability either by way of a decree or the actual amount due to any such creditors. Section 53 of the Act will not take away the validity of sale deed or transfer made by the transferor/debtor to any other person, but would stand bound by the liability to pay any amount to any of such creditors and to that extent, would stand voidable. When such liability to the creditors comes to an end either by payment or otherwise, necessarily, the document of transfer would stand valid. The jurisdiction that can be exercised under Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act is not to set aside the entire document as “fraudulent transfer” or to cancel the same or to make a declaration to that effect by a decree, but to declare that transfer of property under that document would stand subject to the liability of creditors and to that extent, the transfer thereunder would stand voidable. When a claim petition is preferred, by the transferee and when the transfer is found to be fraudulent and intended to defeat or delay the creditors of transferor, the claim petition in toto cannot be dismissed, giving the effect curtailing the entire right of claimant/transferee over the property or under the transaction. It is tantamount to declaring the entire transaction void and no such recourse is permissible under the said provision. 7. At this juncture, it is necessary to have some understanding with respect to the scheme, procedure and the jurisdiction that can be exercised under Rule 58 of Order XXI C.P.C., which is extracted below for reference: “58. Adjudication of claims to or objections to attachment of, property.- (1) Where any claim is preferred to, or any objection is made to the attachment of, any property attached in execution of a decree on the ground that such property is not liable to such attachment, the Court shall proceed to adjudicate upon the claim or objection in accordance with the provisions herein contained: Provided that no such, claim or objection shall be entertained- (a) where, before the claim is preferred or objection is made, the property attached has already been sold; or (b) where the Court considers that the claim or objection was designedly or unnecessarily delayed. (2) All questions (including questions relating to right, title or interest in the property attached) arising between the parties to a proceeding or their representatives under this rule and relevant to the adjudication of the claim or objection, shall be determined by the Court dealing with the claim or objection and not by a separate suit. (3) Upon the determination of the questions referred to in sub-rule (2), the Court shall, in accordance with such determination,- (a) allow the claim or objection and release the property from attachment either wholly or to such extent as it thinks fit; or (b) disallow the claim or objection; or (c) continue the attachment subject to any mortgage, charge or other interest in favour of any person; or (d) pass such order as in the circumstances of the case it deems fit. (4) Where any claim or objection has been adjudicated upon under this rule, order made thereon shall have the same force and be subject to the same conditions as to appeal or otherwise as if it were a decree. (4) Where any claim or objection has been adjudicated upon under this rule, order made thereon shall have the same force and be subject to the same conditions as to appeal or otherwise as if it were a decree. (5) Where a claim or an objection is preferred and the Court, under the proviso to sub-rule (I), refuses to entertain it, the party against whom such order is made may institute a suit to establish the right which he claims to the property in dispute; but, subject to the result of such-suit, if any, an order so refusing to entertain the claim or objection shall be conclusive.” (emphasis supplied) 8. Rule 58 is the provision for adjudicating the claims and objection as against the attachment of any property in execution and the Rule was made available to an attachment made at the trial stage before judgment under Order XXXVIII Rule 8 C.P.C.. Whenever there is an attachment either at the trial stage or at the execution stage, any claim over and against the attachment or by way of objection shall be adjudicated in the manner specified under Rule 58. Sub-Rule (1) says that such claim or objection shall be adjudicated in accordance with the provisions made therein supplemented by a proviso that no such claim or objection shall be entertained in case (a) where, before the claim is preferred or objection is made, the property attached has already been sold or(b) where the Court considers that the claim or objection was designedly or unnecessarily delayed”. Sub-Rule (5) was incorporated to do justice to parties in the event of non-entertainment of any claim or objection under the said two clauses (a) and (b) attached to the proviso to sub-section (1) by permitting the party to institute a suit to establish their right and subject to the result of that suit, such refusal under sub- rule (1) clauses (a) or (b) would stand conclusive. Except under the abovesaid two clauses, no other separate suit is permissible to adjudicate any claim which would come under the purview of Rule 58(1) of Order XXI C.P.C. by virtue of the statutory restriction and bar incorporated under sub-rule (2), but what is incorporated in sub-rule (2) is pertaining to all questions relating to right, title and interest arising between the “parties to a proceedings or their representatives” and not with respect to a dispute of third person. The plain language used in sub- section(2) “party to the proceedings or their representatives” may not have any different connotation apart from the language used in Section 47 C.P.C., wherein also, the very same language was employed as “party to the suit or their representatives” by substituting the word “suit” in the place of “proceedings” presumably on the ground that Section 47 deals with the determination of dispute between the parties to the suit in execution, in contrast with Rule 58 dealing with adjudication of claim petitions and objections against attachment. The expression “their representatives” hence should be understood with the help of Section 47 C.P.C., by which an exhaustive definition was given. Necessarily, a purchaser of the property prior to the order of attachment, who obtained independent title over the property cannot be brought under the sweep of a “representative” of party to a proceedings or a suit/decree, except in the case of a sham document, diligently executed in collusion with transferor with the intention to defraud his creditors. If it is a sham document, there may not be any actual transfer, but only a creation of document of transfer intended to defeat the creditors. Since there is only an ostensible transfer to defeat the creditors under a “sham” document, the person in whose name it was executed would squarely come under the purview of “representative” of the transferor and would stand bound by the bar and restriction imposed under sub-rule (2) of Rule 58 and he cannot maintain a separate suit for adjudication of the dispute. But when it is found to be “fraudulent transfer” and not a “sham” document, that is to say that a transfer with consideration either in part or in full or by employing a fictitious consideration in part or without the required good faith as mandated under the second part of Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act, he cannot be brought under the purview of “representative” of the transferor, hence will stand outside the purview of bar under sub-rule(2) and the transferee can maintain a separate suit for adjudication of the dispute. But when an order of attachment was made over the property by any of the creditors, the purchaser would stand by the attachment and would get a cause of action to agitate the issue either by a separate suit or by a claim petition and in that event, the claim petition made will have the effect of separate suit so as to adjudicate the claim under that rule viz., Rule 58 of Order XXI C.P.C.. 9. The transfer made with the intent to delay or defeat the creditors would come under the broad spectrum of “fraudulent transfer” for the purpose of Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act, but sufficient safeguarding measures were incorporated to a “transferee in good faith and for consideration”. When the document is found to be a fraudulent transfer within the mischief of Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act, it is necessary to address the right of purchaser to get back any amount given by way of part consideration or in full and any past liability, for which, no provision was made under Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act. The section lays down only substantial law without addressing the said issue and it is not addressed anywhere in the Transfer of Property Act. For getting rateable distribution of assets, any of the creditor can maintain an action under the provision of Insolvency Act, but with the hurdle that the proceedings should be initiated based on the “act of insolvency” as defined under the Act within the prescribed period. On expiry of the said period, the only remedy available to the creditor is to maintain an action under Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act for and on behalf of and for the benefit of all such creditors, who are entitled to rateable distribution/adjustment. On expiry of the said period, the only remedy available to the creditor is to maintain an action under Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act for and on behalf of and for the benefit of all such creditors, who are entitled to rateable distribution/adjustment. Though there is a provision in the Insolvency Act for such rateable distribution, no such provision is made under Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act or anywhere in the Act, but laid down only substantial law with respect to legal consequences of a “fraudulent transfer” and what actually amounts to it, without addressing the procedural law to be applied so as to get it finally and completely resolved. In Rule 58 of Order XXI C.P.C. also, the procedure to be adopted in the matter of a fraudulent document which would fall under the mischief of Section 53 of T.P. Act was not specified, though provisions were made to adjudicate all issues pertaining to an attachment over a property. Necessarily, two options are available to the purchaser that he can discharge all the liability of creditors so defeated so as to make the document valid, for which there is no legal impediment in making an application under Order XXI Rule 58 C.P.C. , when the transfer is found to be fraudulent within the mischief of Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act or he can step into the shoes of a creditor in so far as the genuine part of consideration that he had paid under the transfer and also for the subsisting prior liability or debt due from the transferor and can opt for a suit for recovery of money by availing an option under Section 35 of the Transfer of Property Act and can attach the very same property for the satisfaction of the decree amount, that may be passed and he can apply for rateable distribution by sailing along with other creditors, for which necessarily there should be a decree for money in his favour, without which no action can be maintained. It is not permissible to maintain a creditor petition after the lapse of time schedule available on an “act of insolvency”, though it is permissible for the debtor to exhaust the remedy at any point of time under the provisions of Insolvency Act, no one can dictate the debtor in that behalf. It is not permissible to maintain a creditor petition after the lapse of time schedule available on an “act of insolvency”, though it is permissible for the debtor to exhaust the remedy at any point of time under the provisions of Insolvency Act, no one can dictate the debtor in that behalf. Virtually it makes the issue so complicated. No remedy provided to the purchaser under Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act. Necessarily, the scope of jurisdiction that can be exercised under Order XXI Rule 58 C.P.C. for the purpose of adjudication of claim raised by such purchaser must be as that of an adjudication of a civil suit with all its consequences. 10. There should be an understanding with respect to an application (claim petition or objection) that can be maintained as against an attachment under the provision of Order XXI Rule 58 C.P.C.. In all respects, the applicant would be the person who purported to have obtained the property by virtue of any transfer which would come under the mischief of Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act or any one claiming under him. The suit that can be instituted under Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act must be a representative suit for and on behalf of and for the benefit of all the creditors and it must be by a “creditor” and none else. In other words, it is not within the permissibility of a transferee under a fraudulent transfer or any person claiming under him to bring up a suit under Section 53 of the Act for any declaration of his title or any such relief pertaining to his right, title and interest over the property, though it is permissible to file a suit for declaration of his right, interest or title over the property under the normal procedure. In that view of the matter, it is clear that no transfer can be avoided without having a suit or proceeding as mandated under the said provision, Section 53 of T.P. Act by exercising option available to any of the creditors and it should be for and on behalf of and for the benefit of all the creditors. Hence the substantial law under Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act gives a cause of action only to the creditors and not to a transferee under the document. Hence the substantial law under Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act gives a cause of action only to the creditors and not to a transferee under the document. A claim petition by the transferee cannot be said to be for the benefit of any of the creditors or on behalf of any such creditors. Hence it may not come under the purview of Section 53 of Transfer of Property Act as it is not the result of exercise of option by a creditor, which is the vital requirement for bringing up an action under Section 53 of the Act. What is answered by the Full Bench in Verizon Builders's case (supra) is that it is within the permissibility of the court to consider and adjudicate a claim under Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act, but has not gone into the question as to what are the requirements to be complied with for maintaining a claim petition by the purchaser. When the document is found to be fraudulent, the order of attachment will stand confirmed to the extent of liability covered by the decree that may be passed. 11. The corollary is that when a document of transfer is found to be fraudulent and sham in nature, it has to be adjudicated under Rule 58 of Order XXI C.P.C. and not by a separate suit by virtue of sub-rule (2) since the person claiming under a sham document would always be a person litigating under the purported transferor/debtor. But when a document is found to be fraudulent within the mischief of Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act and not a sham document, the court has to deal with the matter as per clauses (b) to (d) of sub-rule (3), which are extracted once again below for reference: “(b) disallow the claim or objection; or (c) continue the attachment subject to any mortgage, charge or other interest in favour of any person; or (d) pass such order as in the circumstances of the case it deems fit.” 12. The word “disallow” and the jurisdiction of the court under clause (b) to “disallow” a claim or objection should be read along with the mandate under Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act and the jurisdiction vested should not be mis-interpreted in synonymous with the word “dismissal”. The word “disallow” and the jurisdiction of the court under clause (b) to “disallow” a claim or objection should be read along with the mandate under Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act and the jurisdiction vested should not be mis-interpreted in synonymous with the word “dismissal”. The legislative intention is clear in using the word “disallow” and not the word “dismissal”. When the document is found to be fraudulent on the ground that a part of consideration is not genuine and the rest of the consideration is genuine would bring the purchaser within the ambit of a 'creditor' as against the debtor for the said part of genuine consideration and he can thereon sail along with other creditors and maintain an attachment over the property for the said portion of genuine consideration, for which necessarily, there should be a proceeding or a suit initiated in that behalf. The scope of enquiry and jurisdiction vested with the court under Rule 58 especially in view of the restriction imposed under sub-rule (2) assumes importance at this juncture and it is permissible for the purchaser to maintain an action by way of a claim petition, both under the claim that the transfer is not fraudulent within the mischief of Section 53 of the T.P.Act and that the transfer was in good faith and for consideration. He can also claim the part of genuine consideration passed over or any outstanding debt when the document found to be fraudulent within the mischief of that section. Hence, while exercising the jurisdiction under clause (b), the court can only “disallow” the claim of purchaser that the document is not fraudulent and that he is a transferee in good faith for consideration. That does not mean that when the document is partly supported by genuine consideration, the right of such claimant/purchaser for the said amount would stand rejected/disallowed. A dismissal of such application in toto would give rise to an impression that the whole claim of the petitioner/purchaser would stand rejected, especially when the order will have the effect of a decree in all respects including for the purpose of appeal. A dismissal of such application in toto would give rise to an impression that the whole claim of the petitioner/purchaser would stand rejected, especially when the order will have the effect of a decree in all respects including for the purpose of appeal. In short, when the court found that the document would fall under the mischief of Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act, is bound to proceed further under clause (b) or (c) or (d) of sub-rule (3) of Rule 58 of Order XXI C.P.C. and each such decision taken under any of such clause would have the same force and be subject to the same conditions as to appeal or otherwise as if it were a decree by virtue of sub-rule (4). Necessarily, as against the normal principle that the court cannot pass decree or deemed decree one after another in same proceeding except in the matter which requires passing of preliminary and final decree, an exception was carved out under sub-rule (3) of Rule 58 to pass more than one order one after another, which would have the same effect and force of decree. Hence, it is within the jurisdiction of the court under that Rule to address each of the clause and pass orders whenever it is found to be necessary and even it is permissible to pass orders under the abovesaid clauses one after another and each would have the effect and force of a decree for all purpose including appeal. It makes the legal position clear that Rule 58(3) and (4) empowers the court to adjudicate all the issues pertaining to the attachment of a property which would otherwise fall under the mischief of Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act and to pass any order which will have the effect and force of a decree in the circumstances of the case and deems fit. The jurisdiction that can be exercised to adjudicate the claim would also include any and every right of purchaser involved in the case in relation to the transfer under challenge as if the same was taken up by the purchaser by way of a separate suit, though a separate suit is permissible unless the document constitute a sham transaction. The jurisdiction that can be exercised to adjudicate the claim would also include any and every right of purchaser involved in the case in relation to the transfer under challenge as if the same was taken up by the purchaser by way of a separate suit, though a separate suit is permissible unless the document constitute a sham transaction. So the dismissal of the claim petition in toto on the finding that the document is fraudulent and would come under the mischief of Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act is wholly impermissible. The clause (d) and the jurisdiction thereunder would operate only when an order was made under clause (b) disallowing the claim or objection by the purchaser and the resultant effect under clause (c). Every order so passed under clause (b) and (c) and subsequent order under clause (d) will have the effect of a separate decree in all respects. In other words, it is permissible to exhaust the remedy either by way of a lessor relief or an alternative relief by virtue of the jurisdiction vested with the court under clause (d). Hence, it may not be permissible for the claimant to maintain a separate suit when the claim petition was decided against him, which will have the effect and force of a valid decree in all respects. Necessarily, the principle of constructive res judicata and the hit of Order II Rule 2(3) may come into effect when the claim petition will have the effect of a separate suit and hence, the claim for amount, if any due to the transferee/claimant should be considered and decided under the said Rule and not by a separate suit, for which, the relief of amount due under the transfer should be a lessor relief in relation to the larger relief of claim of title by the purchaser and hence, permissible to grant the same on showing the entitlement without having a separate relief sought in that behalf. When transfer is found to be under the mischief of Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act, the further claim of purchaser for any amount due from the debtor/defendant including the genuine part of consideration, if any passed under the document shall be adjudicated under clause (d) and every such adjudication will have the effect of and force of a decree both for the purpose of an appeal and for other purposes. Hence, the dismissal of claim petition in toto without adjudicating the claim of purchaser for any amount due or any genuine part of consideration under the document is bad in law and cannot be sustained. The appeal will stand allowed in part. The order of the trial court in dismissing the claim petition in toto is hereby set aside and the claim of title raised by the claimant/purchaser is hereby disallowed. For adjudicating the claim as to the amount, if any due to the purchaser from the debtor including any part of genuine sale consideration, the matter is remanded back to the trial court with a direction to dispose of the matter within a time schedule of two months from the date of appearance of parties. The parties shall appear before the trial court on 14/03/2023. No costs.