1. This Second Appeal is from concurrent decrees dismissing a suit. As Shri Krishnaswami Iyengar, learned counsel for the appellant confined his arguments to one point, it is not necessary to state the contentions elaborately. The facts as found by the courts below are that the 2nd defendant, a junior member of a Marumakkathayam Tarwad got an assignment of the decree in O. S. No. 462 of 1082 which was obtained by a creditor against the Tarwad and that in execution of the decree she purchased items 1 to 6 in the plaint schedule and got delivery of possession of the same. The plaintiff's case that she was a benamidar for Mathevan Raman, who though a junior member was alleged to have been the de facto manager of the Tarwad, was found against. In view of the concurrent findings, Shri. Krishnaswami Iyengar raised only one point viz„ that when a junior member obtains an assignment of a secured decree against the Tarwad and purchases Tarwad properties in execution he should be deemed to have only discharged a debt binding on the tarwad and that he is liable to surrender such properties to the Tarwad on receipt of the amount spent by him, It was urged that the 2nd defendant cou