The onus of proof is on the person claiming to be the transferee to show that the person who provided the consideration did intend to provide the consideration for his or her benefit.

V. RAMASWAMI, J. :- The second defendant is the appellant. The first respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for partition and allotment of 1/3 share in the suit properties which consisted of six schedules. The suit was decreed only in respect of the plaint A schedule properties and even in respect of the same the plaintiff was held to be entitled to only to a 1/4 share and not 1/3 share as claimed in the plaint. The suit in respect of the properties mentioned in the other schedules was dismissed. Since in this appeal by the second defendant, the decree granted in favour of the plaintiff in respect of item 1 of the plaint A schedule alone is disputed, we need notice only the facts relating to that item and the respective contentions of the parties.

2. The plaintiff, defendants 1 and 2 and one Chockalingam Pillai are the sons of one Arthanatha Pillai through his third wife. He had a son by name Soundararajan by his first wife and another son by name Mathuranayagam by his second wife. On 22-08-1921 (Ex. B-52). item 1 of the plaint A schedule was purchased in the name of Nagammal, the third wife of Arthanatha Pillai. Arthanatha Pillai executed a will, Ex. A-1, dated 13-7-1927 and died in the year 1928. Under this Will he treated the property purchased in the name of his third wife Nagammal as his self-acquired property and made certain bequests in respect of the same, which will be noticed in detail while considering the respective cases of the parties. Nagammal died on 18-12-1961 leaving a Will dated 15-7-1953 (Ex. B-2). Under this Will, she purported to deal with this item of property as if it was her own and in respect of which she had absolute powers of disposition. The case of the plaintiff was that this item is the self-acquired property of his father Arthanatha Pillai, and that under his Will Ex. A-1 dated 13-7-1927 he is entitled to a 1/3 share. It was stated that Chockalingam Pillai, one of the sons of Arthanatha, relinquished his rights in respect of the same under Ex. A-10, dated 21-4-1937 and that therefore his legal representatives, defendants 14 to 16, are not entitled to any share in the same. The second defendant, claiming an absolute title to the entirety of this item under the Will of Nagammal, resisted this claim of the plaintiff. It was also contended by him that the property was not the self-acquired property of Arthanatha Pillai, that his father Arthanatha had no right of disposition over the same and that therefore the plaintiff had no right to claim any share in respect of this item relying on the Will Ex. A-1. He further contended that the consideration for the same had not been proved to have been paid by his father and that in any case even if consideration had been paid by Arthanatha Pillai there was no evidence to show that he did not intend by such payment to benefit his third wife Nagammal. Alternatively he contended that even under the Will Nagammal obtained an absolute estate and that therefore she was entitled to dispose of the same in any manner she liked and that the plaintiff had no claim for a share in respect of the same. Even if the Will is construed as not conferring an absolute estate in favour of the sons of Arthanatha and is a conditional bequest and the conditions not having been satisfied, the plaintiff and the other sons are not entitled to any share in the same except the second defendant. The trial court held that the porperty was purchased by Arthanatha benami in the name of his wife from and out of his own income and that it was purchased by him in the name of Nagammal for the benefit of Nagammal and her sons and not Nagammal exclusively. The learned Subordinate Judge also found that the Will executed by Nagammal had not been proved and that she had also no disposing power over this item of property. In respect of the plaintiff's case that Chockalinga, one of the sons, had released his right over the same and that therefore the plaintiff was entitled to a 1/3 share in the suit