Judgement

Appeal (No. 39 of 1923) from a decree (May 20, 1921) of the High Court varying a decree of the officiating Subordinate Judge of Midnapur.

The suit was brought in 1917 by the first four respondents (the remaining respondents being defendants joined pro forma) against the two appellants. The plaintiffs alleged by their plaint that the second appellant, who had been their pleader in a previous suit, had bought the unexecuted portion of the decree made in the suit, the purchase being made in the name of the pleaders wife, the first appellant. They prayed for a declaration that the purchase had been made benami and for consequent

Law. Rep. 51 Ind. App. 24 ( 1923- 1924)

Nagendrabala Dasi V. Dinanath Mahish 142

relief. During the pendency of the suit the first appellant executed the decree, and, having obtained the leave of the Court to bid, purchased at the auction the property taken in execution.

The Subordinate Judge found that the decree had been purchased by the pleader benami, and ordered a re-transfer of it upon the terms stated in the judgment of the Judicial Committee.

Upon appeal to the High Court the decision of the trial judge was affirmed by Mookerjee and Buckland JJ.