AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
O.S. No. 610 of 1887 was instituted by the 1st defendant, plaintiff''s brother, who is alleged by plaintiff to have been his agent, the property which
1st defendant sought to recover in the above suit having been purchased in his name benami for plaintiff. The question is whether plaintiff is bound
by the decision in that case. The presumption is that the benamidar instituted the suit with the authority and consent of the true owner (Gopi Nath
Chobey v. Bhugwat Pershad I. L. R 10 C 697), and the Lower Courts have found Upon the evidence that the suit was instituted with the
knowledge of the plaintiff. He is therefore as much bound by the decree as if he had himself instituted the suit, and the present suit is barred as
being res judicata. The plaintiff stood by and permitted his undivided brother to sue for possession. There was nothing to put the person in
possession upon inquiry as to who was the real owner, and it is too late now for plaintiff to be allowed to recover on his secret title. The second
appeal is dismissed with costs.