VYANKAPPACHARYA SHRINIVASACHARYA Vs. YAMNASANI RADHASANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This was a suit to recover the property in dispute from the defendant on the allegation that it originally belonged to one Solbanna, who sold it on the 4th of July 1903 to Guracharya by Exhibit 11; that Guracharya having died in 1905 it descended to his widow Laxmibai; that she sold it, on the 2nd of October 1907, to the plaintiff by a sale-deed (Exhibit 12). The defendant who was in actual possession pleaded that she was the owner of the property, and that Guracharya s purchase (Exhibit 11) was benami for her, because she having been in his keeping, he had purchased the property for her, in his name, with her own money.

(2.) In the Court of first instance the issues raised were:--Whether the defendant had purchased the house in suit from Solbanna with her own money and got from him the sale-deed (Exhibit 11) in Guracharya s name benami for her? That issue was found in the affirmative. The second issue was:--Whether the plaintiff had notice of that fact? And the Court found that the plaintiff had no notice. The third issue was: -- Whether the plaintiff was the owner of the house in suit? The Court found that the plaintiff was not the owner, and that, therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled to the relief which he claimed, either by way of possession or manse profits.

(3.) The plaintiff appealed. The lower appellate Court agreed with the Court of first instance on all the questions of fact. And with reference to the question of the plaintiff s notice of Guracharya s benami purchase, that Court observed that "the plaintiff must be held to have had constructive notice of whatever rights actually vested in the defendant, because the defendant was the person in possession, although as a matter of fact there was no direct evidence of knowledge."