1. The defendant in O.S. No. 349/83 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Palghat is the revision petitioner.

2. The respondent instituted the suit for recovery of the property in dispute on the strength of title. The suit has been decreed, accepting the case of the plaintiff that the properly belongs to him although it stands in the name of the petitioner - defendant. The petitioner-defendant has been found to be only a benamidar. A reference in this connection to the following excerpts from the judgment of this Court in Narayanan & Others v. Gangadharan (1988 (1) KLJ. 601: 1988 (I) KLT. 933), (by this judgment this Court disposed of the appeal where the decree sought to be executed was under attack) is relevant.

"There is no evidence in this case to show that the plaintiff wanted to benefit the defendants when he provided funds for purchase of landed properties. On the other hand, the evidence is overwhelming in this case to the effect that money was sent by the plaintiff to the defendant in OS. No. 349 of 1983 for the specific purpose of purchasing landed properties in the name of the plaintiff, but, instead, he purchased the properties in the name of himself and his o