1. We think the decree is right. Satisfaction of the decree in Original Suit No. 36 of 1903 had been certified under Section 258, Civil Procedure Code long before the appellant’s attachment. If the decree-holder in Original Suit No. 36 of 1903 was himself seeking to execute the decree the certificate of satisfaction would be a complete answer to him unless he proves that he had been induced by fraud or misrepresentation to certify satisfaction. No allegation of fraud or misrepresentation is made by the decree-holder in Original Suit No. 36 of 1903 and the appellant cannot set up the case that the decree-holder was defrauded. It is contended that satisfaction was certified by the decree-holder in Original Suit No. 36 of 1903 though nothing was actually paid to him in order that his creditors might not be able to proceed against that decree, and that the appellant should be given an opportunity of proving this. The case is said to be analogous to a case of fraudulent transfer under Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act. There is no analogy between the two cases. The transfer dealt with in Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act is a fraudulent transfer of. ownership of immoveable property to defeat creditors. That is a very different case from the case where a decree-holder, for whatever reason forgives his judgment-debtor and certifies satisfaction “without receiving payment. We are aware of no provision or principle of law which prevents a judgment-creditor from absolving his judgment-debtor at any time before any other persons have acquired a right to realize the debt. The appeal is dismissed with costs.