1. The finding in this casa is that the plaintiff was a benamidar for Kamakshi Ammal. The issue raised in the case covers this question and there is evidence upon which the Court below was entitled to come to the conclusion that the defendant executed the document to the plaintiff at the instance of Kamakshi and on her behalf. I accept this finding. Then Mr. Seshagiri Sastri argues that as the rent deed was executed to the plaintiff, payment to Kamakshi Ammal cannot absolve the defendant from liability to him, and he relies upon the authority of Jainarayan Bose v. Kadimbini Bad(1) for that position.
2. There has been a conflict of views in regard to this question and, so far as this High Court is concerned, in Kuthaperumal Rajali v. Secretary of State(2) the learned Judges have come to the conclusion that the real owner is entitled to maintain a suit in his own name for recovery of property or money. Following that decision Wallis, J., in Kuppukonan v. Thirugnana Sammandam Pillai(3), has held that the plea of estoppel available against a tenant is only in favour of the real owner and not in favour of the benamidar. I entirely agree with this view. The money having been paid to Kamakshi Ammal, the defendant is discharged from liability to the plaintiff and the suit was rightly dismissed by the District Munsif and I dismiss the petition with costs.
S.N/R.K
3. Revision dismissed.