1. Three points are urged on behalf of the appellant against whom the courts below have concurred in passing a decree for possession. The appellant is the 2nd defendant in the suit. His mother, under whom he claims, was the 1st defendant. She died pending suit, and the appellant who is her legal representative is now the sole defendant). They are:

(1) that the purchase of the suit property by the plaintiff under Ext. D15 dated 8 21121 was benami for the 1st defendant;

(2) that the decree for possession obtained by the defendants against the plaintiff in a prior suit, O. S.651/1123, is res judicata in their favour; and,

(3) that by reason of S. SO of the Trusts Act, the plaintiff's purchase, under Ext. D15, even if for himself, must enure for the benefit of the 1st defendant.

2. The property in suit, a piece of garden land 3.17 acres in extent held under a possessory mortgage, was part of a holding of about 14 acres which the plaintiff admittedly took on lease from the 1st defendant in 1112 M. E. (1936-37). It was sold in execution of a decree obtained against the 1st defendant (among others) by some third parties; and, from the purchasers in the court auction, the present p