These two appeals arise out of a suit filed by the respondent for a declaration of his title to the property described in the plaint schedule consisting of a site in Rayappapuram in the town of Tirupur and the superstructure thereon. The case of the respondent as set out in the plaint was that in the year 1925 he had submitted a petition to Government to obtain a sale of vacant site in Hemingway Street in Tirupur and that while that petition was pending he came to know that vacant sites would be granted by Government on dharkast in Rayappapuram and, apprehending that if he put in an application for one of such vacant sites he might not be granted any site, because he had already applied for a site in Heming-way Street, he made the appellant, who was a son of his sister and also his brother-in-law, apply for a site in Rayappapuram, that eventually a site was granted on dharkast to the appellant in December, 1931, that subsequently he sunk a well and constructed a house with his own moneys and ever since he was in possession and enjoyment of the property paying the municipal taxes, etc., in respect of it, that at no time did the appellant possess or enjoy the property, that it was only some time before the institution of the suit that the defendant attempted to set up title in himself, that though the grant was in the name of the appellant, it was he, the plaintiff, who was entitled to the site as the appellant was only a benamidar for him and it was, therefore, necessary that the Court should declare his title to the property.

The appellant denied that the application made by him for the grant of a site was on behalf, and for the benefit, of the respondent. He also denied that the well was dug and the house was built with the funds of the respondent. He stated that he incurred the expenses for them. He further alleged that the respondent on account of his intimate relationship was managing the property on his behalf but he had no title to the property. A few months prior to the suit, the appellant approached him with a request to sell the house for Rs.1,000 and even prepared the sale deed to be executed by him but he would not agree to sell the house and the suit was really an attempt on the part of the respondent to obtain the property unlawfully. This was the case of the appellant.

The learned District Munsif of Tirupur who tried the suit held that the site belonged to the defendant-appellant but that the house was built by the plaintiff respondent at his own cost. He further held that the respondent would be entitled to a charge on the appellant’s interest in the suit property in the sum of R.1,000 representing the moneys spent by him the respondent, for the construction of the house.

The learned District Munsif’s conclusion was based on his finding that the respondent could not be permitted to set up a case which really amounted to having played a fraud on the Government in putting the appellant as a mere namelender and obtaining a grant on false representation.

There were two appeals against this decision of the learned District Munsif, one by the plaintiff, in so far as the decision as regards title to the site was concerned. The other appeal was by the defendant against the direction of the Munsif in respect of the sum of Rs.1,000 which, according to his finding, was the amount spent by the plaintiff for the construction of the house.

The learned Subordinate Judge agreed with the learned District Munsif that it was the plaintiff-respondent who dug the well and built the house with his own funds but came to a different conclusion on the question of title to the site. He took the view that the dharkast application by the appellant was really benami for the respondent and therefore the acquisition of the site by the appellant was also for the benefit of the respondent. He therefore held that the respondent had acquired title to the suit site. In the result he allowed the appeal of the plaintiff and dismissed the