The interpretation of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition of the Right to Recover Property) Ordinance, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as .'the Ordinance') arises for consideration in the second appeal. As to how the Ordinance is attracted to the case will be revealed from the facts to follow.

FACTS OF THE CASE

2. The facts of the case are short and simple.

3. The suit was filed for partition and the invalidation of Ext. A3 document dated 11-8-1965 executed by the plaintiff's mother the 3rd defendant. He claimed one fifth share in the property and contended that the alienation effected by his mother at a time when he was a minor was invalid as regards his share. One Padmanabhan was the original owner of the property. Through his first wife, he had two sons Bhaskaran and Madhusoodanan, defendants 4 and 5. On the death of his first wife, Padmanabhan married Meenakshi the 3rd defendant. Plaintiff Rajeev, and 6th defendant Sarala are the son and daughter born in that marriage connection.

4. Padmanabhan had acquired the property under Ext. Al sale deed dated 9-2-1961, executed by one Velayudhan. Padmanabhan died on 4-7-1965. It was soon thereafter that the 3rd defendant executed