JUDGMENT

1. (After stating the facts as above, their Lordships continued): Since the appeal to this Court was preferred Govinda Kuar has died. Luchmon Prosad and Ramjani have been substituted as appellants, and by another order of this Court Mohesh Prosad has also been joined as a co-appellant.

2. The substantial contention on behalf of the appellants are (i) that the family property was partitioned before 1865; (ii) that Gonesho, and Govinda Kuar, respectively, were the real proprietors of the Mouza Tendua; and (iii) that, even if they were benamidars, the benami transactions have been set up by the plaintiff for the purpose of defrauding creditors, and that, in fact, Bhagwat Ram and Bichoha Ram, the two creditors, were defrauded by this benami transfer, and that the Court, therefore, cannot relieve the plaintiff from the consequence of his fraud.

3. The respondent contends that Kishun Prosad and Janki Prosad were members of an undivided Hindu family; that the Mouzah Tendua has been all along joint family property, though standing benami in the names of various female members of the family, and that, as joint property, it devolved at Janki Prosad's death on the plaintiff by the right