VAITHEESWARA IYER Vs. SRINIVASA RAGHAVA IYENGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE think that this question must be considered to have been settled by the recent pronouncement of the Privy Council in Choudhri Gur Narayan v. Sheo Lal Singh (1918) 36 M.L.J. 68 The respondents were not represented, but the report of the argument shows that the divergent decisions of the Courts in India were placed before their Lordships by Mr. De Gruyther who appeared for the appellants. Mr. Amir Ali dealt with the point in the following very general terms. "As already observed, the benamidar has no beneficial interest in the property or business that stands in his name; he represents, in fact, the real owner, and, so far as their relative legal position is concerned he is a mere trustee for him. Their Lordships find it difficult to understand why, in such circumstances, an action cannot be maintained in the name of the benamidar in respect of the property although the beneficial owner is no party to it." These very general observations appear to us to be conclusive of the question referred to us, and we accordingly answer it in the affirmative.