RAM RATAN PUROHIT Vs. SIKDAR ALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This was a suit for, recovery of possession of certain lands on the allegation that they belonged to a certain taluk which had been purchased in the name of the plaintiffs in a revenue sale. There was also a prayer in the plaint, in the alternative, for the recovery of rent. The Courts below found that the plaintiff was a benamdar and was not entitled to bring this suit.

(2.) The plaintiff appeals.

(3.) It has been argued that the findings of the Courts below on the subject of benami are not sufficient to warrant the decision that the plaintiff was the banamdar. This, however, is an inference of fact with which I could not in any case interfere in second appeal and I may say, though perhaps it is somewhat beyond the scope of my authority, that, on reading the reasoning of (he Munsif on the point which was accepted by the learned. District Judge on appeal, there cannot be much doubt that this matter was rightly decided.