JUDGMENT
Chamier, C.J.
1. This appeal arises out of a suit by the respondent for possession of immoveable property on the strength of a deed of sale executed in his favour. The first Court dismissed the suit on grounds which it is not necessary to specify. The District Judge reversed the decree of the first Court and passed a decree in favour of the respondent. The appellants have pleaded inter alia that the respondent was merely the creature of a Mukhtar named Jagdish Narayan and had paid them nothing. At the trial evidence was given by the respondent that he was the real purchaser and by the appellants that the real purchaser was Jagdish Narayan. In the course of his judgment the District Judge used language which seemed like a finding that the respondent was no more than the benamidar of Jagdish Narayan. There being some doubt whether the finding was sufficiently definite, we adjourned the hearing of the appeal and subsequently heard the parties on the evidence relating to the question whether the respondent was the real purchaser or only a benamidar. Having examined the evidence. I have no doubt whatever that the real purchaser was Jagdish Narayan and that the respondent was only his benamidar and has no interest whatever in the land claimed in this suit. There is a long string of decision in the Calcutta High Court according to which a benamidar cannot maintain a suit of the kind now before us. I think that we ought to follow those decisions in his Court, whatever our personal views on the subject may be. I would allow this appeal, reverse the decree of the District Judge and restore the decree of the first Court with costs here and in the lower Appellate Court.
Jwala Prasad, J.
2. I agree.