Venkataramana Rao, J.

1. The only point urged by Mr. V. Ramaswami Aiyar is that his clients should have been given relief under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act by non-suiting the plaintiff. I do not think this contention is tenable. Under Section 41 it must be shown that the first defendant was the ostensible owner with the consent express or implied of the person interested in the property. There is no evidence of tacit consent. The mere fact that an entry was made in the Survey Register cannot be relied on as such consent. I therefore dismiss the second appeal with costs.

2. Leave to appeal refused.