1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff against a decree of the Subordinate Judge, Tinnevelly. The plaintiff alleged in his plaint that it was agreed between the plaintiff and Chidambara Iyer, father, of the defendant, that the latter should purchase the properties now in suit on behalf of the plaintiff at a sale in execution of a decree with the money which the plaintiff agreed to pay to him, and that the properties should be taken possession of through Court; that Chidambara Iyer should enjoy for four years the income from the said properties in satisfaction of all debts incurred on those properties; that after four years the properties should be put into plaintiff's possession free of all incumbrances and that Chidambara Iyer should execute a sale-deed to plaintiff in respect of them. In accordance with these arrangements, the plaintiff states that the properties were purchased by Chidambara Iyer as plaintiff's agent with plaintiff's money and that he remained in possession. The plaintiff now sues for the execution of a sale-deed and for recovery of possession. The suit was dismissed by the Subordinate Judge as he was of opinion that it is barred by Section 66 of the CPC.
2. The plaintiff appeals.
3. The section enacts that “no suit shall be maintained against any person claiming title under a purchase certified by the Court in such manner as may be prescribed on the ground that the purchase was made on behalf of the plaintiff or on behalf of some one through whom the plaintiff claims.” When the plaintiff was examined as a witness in the case, he admitted that the defendant's father Chidambara Iyer purchased the suit properties in Court auction as benamidar for him and he again repeated the statement that “the agreement between myself and defendant's father was that he should purchase the properties for me as benamidar and that he should enjoy the properties for four years,” in accordance with the arrangement referred to. This statement that the purchase by the defendant's father was benami for the plaintiff was repeated in the plaint and also in his deposition as his witness.
4. It was argued before us that as there was an agreement to execute a conveyance in favour of the plaintiff, S. 66 does not bar the suit. But the conveyance was to be executed by the defendant's father on the ground that he was a benamidar. It was not intended hereby that he should convey any title which was vested in him to the plaintiff. The allegations in the plaint do not show that any title was vested in the defendant, that he purchased the property on his own behalf as the owner of the property. It appears to us that the case falls clearly within the scope of Section 66 of the CPC.
5. We accordingly confirm the decree of the lower Court and dismiss the appeal with costs.
S.N/R.K
6. Appeal dismissed.