The learned Additional District Judge of Salem, disagreeing with the decision of the District Munsiff of Sankaridrug at Salem, held in A.S. No. 395 of 1943 out of which this second appeal arises, that Ex. P-1, dated 26th December, 1931, related to the purchase of the suit property in the name of the plaintiffs’ vendor not as benami for the first defendant but in order to enure for the benefit of the plaintiffs’ vendor himself. Ex. P-1 was a sale deed for a consideration of Rs. 800 executed by one Muthuswami Konar in favour of one Duraiswami Naidu, by which the property mentioned therein was sold with absolute rights to the latter. On 7th June, 1941, Duraiswami Naidu sold the property purchased under Ex. P-1 to the plaintiffs for a sum of Rs. 1,500. On the strength of this purchase under Ex. P-12, the plaintiffs brought the suit for a declaration of their title to the suit house and possession of the same with damages for past use and occupation from the defendants. The first defendant who was the brother of defendants 2 and 3 contested the plaintiffs’ claim on the ground that the purchase under Ex. P-1 was for his own benefit and that he paid the consideration for it though the document was taken in the name of Duraiswami Naidu as a benamidar. It was further contended that the thatched house which was standing on the property at the time of the purchase was destroyed by fire and the first defendant built a new house with his own funds.

The trial Court found that the sale deed Ex. P-1 was taken by the first defendant for his own benefit in Duraiswami Naidu’s name as benamidar. It was also held that the first defendant was not a lessee of Duraiswami Naidu. There was a further decision that the tiled house built on the property was constructed by the first defendant with his own funds and that the plaintiffs were not bona fide purchasers for value of the house without notice of the first defendant’s title. The learned District Munsiff discussed the entire oral and documentary evidence at great length before he arrived at the findings adverted to by me above. The result of these findings was that the suit was dismissed. On appeal, the learned Additional District Judge came to a somewhat different conclusion on some of the points in controversy. The result of the learned Judge’s conclusion was that the house was built by the first defendant with his own funds but that Ex. P-1 was. a sale deed in favour of Duraiswami Naidu effected with Duraiswami Naidu’s. own funds and with the intention that the title should vest in Duraiswami Naidu. alone. The learned Judge found that the first defendant’s case that he paid Rs. 500 of the purchase price and that Duraiswami Naidu (P.W. 1) advanced only the balance of Rs. 300 was false. At the end of paragraph 4 of his judgment the learned District Judge observes that Duraiswami Naidu P.W. 1, purchased the property at the instance of the first defendant and for the purpose of providing him with a residence. It was the first defendant who negotiated the transaction and it was he who actually paid the money into the hands of D.W. 1, the vendor under Ex. P-1. The effect of his finding is that Duraiswami Naidu wanted to provide a residence for the first defendant and with that object, and at the instance and request of the first defendant, he purchased the property in question with monies belonging to himself. The learned Judge thereafter discussed the evidence in, relation to the construction of the existing house on the property and agreed with the District Munsiff that it was the first defendant who put up a building spending his own monies and all the while Duraiswami Naidu, P.W. 1, kept quite like disinterested spectator and did not step in to claim his rights. At the end of paragraph 6 the learned Judge observes as follows:

“The lower Court has discussed the matter at considerable length and I am in complete agreement with it when it says that the first defendant effected the improvement a