Venkatasubba Rao, J.

1. Plaintiff 1 is the husband and the suits have been filed for a declaration that the deeds in question, although taken in the name of his wife, the defendant, were benami for himself and that the beneficial interest vests in him. The lower Courts have decreed the suits, but in my opinion their judgments are vitiated by a clear error. The source from which the money comes, as I observed in a recent judgment, furnishes undoubtedly a valuable test, but to regard it as the sole or conclusive criterion, is clearly wrong. (S.A. No. 1148 of 1929). This is precisely the misbake which the lower] Courts have made. In the case I have just referred to, I was dealing with Section 81, Trusts Act, but the provision that directly applies to the facts here is Section 82 which runs thus:

Where property is transferred to one parson for a consideration paid or provided by another person, and it appears that such, other person did not intend to pay or provide such consideration for the benefit of the transferee, the transferee must hold the property for the benefit of the person paying or providing the consideration.

2. I must accept the finding of the lower Courts that the