The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the Indian Trusts Act, Section 82, and the legal principles regarding benami transactions and the Limitation Act.

1. This appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of possession of 15 items of properties on the ground that the plaintiff has become entitled thereto under a gift deed (Ex. A) executed in his favour by one Seetha Bai Ammal on the 4th September, 1914. Seetha Bai Ammal was the widow of one Jagannadha Rao and the mother-in-law of the first defendant. As the first defendant is also called Seetha Bai Ammal, we will refer to the first defendant when necessary as the daughter-in-law.

2. Jagannadha Rao died some time in 1903, leaving him surviving his widow Seetha Bai Ammal and an adopted son Subba Rao, who died in May, 1914. The evidence shows that during the last days of Subba Rao or soon after his death the relations between the mother-in-law and the daughter-in-law became strained and the plaintiff who is the grandson of a brother of the mother-in-law and who had been living in Subba Raos family for some years managed to persuade the old lady to execute a gift in his favour of properties in respect of which the title stood in her name. The old lady died a few months after the date of the gift and, for several years thereafter, the plaintiff on the one hand and the first defendant on the other have been endeavouring to secure the tenants in possession of these properties to their respective sides till ultimately the plaintiff instituted this suit just when the period of 12 years from the date of the gift deed was about to expire.

3. The plaintiff claimed that the properties in respect of which the title deeds stood in the donors name were her stridhanam properties and that she was accordingly competent to make a gift thereof. The first defendant who was the contesting defendant pleaded that though the title to these properties stood in Seetha Bai Animals name, they had all been purchased with the funds belonging to Jagannadha Rao, benami in her name. A plea of limitation was also raised. The question of benami formed the subject of the first issue and the question of limitation of the second issue.

4. The learned Subordinate Judge found the first issue in plaintiffs favour; on the second issue he found that as regards five items, namely, items 1 to 3, 13 and 15, the plaintiff had not shown that he or his donor had been in possession within 12 years of the institution of the suit but that in respect of the other items the plaintiffs possession within the statutory period had been proved. He accordingly dismissed the suit so far as it related to items 1 to 3, 13 and 15 and gave a decree in the plaintiffs favour in respect of the other items. The first defendant has filed this appeal against so much of the decree as is against her and the plaintiff has filed a Memorandum of Objections in respect of the items disallowed to him.

5. In dealing with the question of benami, we may mention at the outset that it has not been suggested that Jagannadha Rao had any creditors from whom he desired to screen these properties. It is obvious from the written statement that the first defendant was hard put to it to suggest a motive for a benami transaction. It is true that Jagannadha Rao took the first defendants husband in adoption in 1884, and some of the letters exhibited in the case show that as a young boy he was not easily persuaded to come and live "with his adoptive parents and preferred to go back to the place where he had theretofore been living. These letters relate to a period when the first defendants husband was 8 or 9 years old and it would be too much to suggest that at that time such conduct brought about any differences between Jagannadha Rao and the adopted son with reference to which the necessity for resorting to benami transactions could be explained. In paragraph 3 of the written statement it is stated that Jagannadha Rao took such precautions as he liked in order to avoid among other things the possibility of the adopted son quarrelling with him and squandering the properties and in order to ensure the obedient conduct of