Minakshi Ammal vs Kalianarama Bayer

The Subordinate Judge has given excellent reasons founded on clear documentary and oral evidence, for his conclusion that the transfers to the

sixth defendant were benami for the family of the plaintiff and defendants Nos. 1 to 3. These reasons have not been shown to be incorrect in the

argument before us. We concur in the finding of the Subordinate Judge on this issue. As to the effect of Section 317 of the CPC with regard to the

plaintiff''s right to maintain the present suit to recover his share of the family property, we observe that the present case is governed by the decision

in Natesa v. Venkatramayyan ILR 6 Mad. 135 . That case is exactly on all fours with the present case, and has not been overruled or dissented

from in the cases referred to by the appellant''s vakil--Bamu, Kurup v. Sridevi ILR 16 Mad. 290 Sankunni Nayar v. Narayanan Nambudri ILR 17

Mad. 282 Kumbalinga Pillai v. Ariaputra Padiachi ILR 18 Mad. 436 .

Lastly, on the finding that the sixth defendant was not the real transferee of the decree, no question as to the effect of Section 244, Civil

Procedure Code, on the plaintiff''s right to maintain this suit can arise. We must, therefore, confirm the decree of the Subordinate Judge and dismiss

this appeal with costs.