LACHMINARAYAN KARNANI Vs. BAJRANG LAL AGARWALLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Plaintiffs-Respondents brought the suit out of which the present appeal arises for certain reliefs, dependent primarily on the agreement, dated August 1, 1937 (Ex. 5). There was also an allegation that a certain sale which had taken place during the pendency of insolvency proceedings, and the purchase by the Defendant No. 8 Joychand Lal Goenka were for the benefit of the Karnani Defendants.

(2.) The learned Subordinate Judge found on the evidence that the purchase by the Defendant No. 8 was by him, and not for the benefit of anybody else. The story of benami purchase was not accepted.

(3.) The principal ground urged on behalf of the Defendants-Appellants is that after the finding that the purchase by the Defendant No. 8 was by him, the decree as passed in favour of the Plaintiffs is not maintainable in law. To appreciate the circumstances under which the agreement had been executed, it will be necessary to refer to some of the facts.