1950 Present : Dias S.P.J. and Swan J.

MUTTALIBU, Appellant, and HAMEED, Respondent

S. C. 335-D. C. Kandy, 2,308

Muslim law-Benami transaction-Not recognized in Ceylon-Usage-Proof, and judicial notice, thereof-Evidence Ordinance (Cap. 11), S. 57-Donation-Ingredients thereof.

Trusts Ordinance (Cap. 72)-Sections 2 and 84-Purchase of property by father in name of son-Equitable doctrine of advancement-Resulting trust-Burden of proof.

A, An Indian Muslim domiciled in Ceylon for fifty years, provided the consideration to four vendors, B. C. D. and E, who thereupon transferred by deed property to F who was the son of A. A and F having fallen out, A sued F (a) for a declaration that F held the property in trust for A, or (b) for a declaration that (i) the four properties, or (ii) the consideration for the four transfers, were gifts to F by A, who was entitled to revoke the gifts.

It was sought to be argued, in view of the decisions of the Privy Council in Gopeekrist Gosain v. Gungapersaud Gosain (1854) 6 Moore's Indian Appeals 53 and Moulvie Sayyud Uzhur Ali v. Musswmat Beebee Ultaf Fatima (1869) 13 Moore's Indian Appeals 232, that the usage