Benami ownership and adverse possession principles confined title to the inherited share and kept the suit within time.

Beneficial ownership in a benami arrangement was held to follow the real owner proved by the evidence, not the apparent transferee. The surrounding transactions did not show that Bohu Begum acquired the whole estate beneficially; her title was confined to the one-fourth share inherited from Abdur Rahman. On limitation, the suit was held to be in time because adverse possession for twelve years before suit was not established under Article 144. Relief was adjusted accordingly: the one anna share was included in the decree and the condition requiring payment of the whole mokurari rent was removed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the disputed property was held by Bohu Begum as real owner of the whole share or only as owner to the extent of the inherited one-fourth share; (ii) whether the suit was barred by limitation and whether the decree required modification as to the one anna share and the condition regarding payment of the whole mokurari rent.

Issue (i): whether the disputed property was held by Bohu Begum as real owner of the whole share or only as owner to the extent of the inherited one-fourth share.

Analysis: The surrounding transactions were found to be benami. The sale deeds, transfers and subsequent dealings did not establish that Bohu Begum had purchased or acquired the entire estate beneficially. The evidence showed that after Abdur Rahman's death the beneficial ownership remained with his legal heirs, and Bohu Begum could support title only to the extent of the share inherited by her. The alleged admissions arising from later transactions and litigation were not sufficient to displace that conclusion.

Conclusion: Bohu Begum was the real owner only of the one-fourth share inherited from Abdur Rahman, and not of the whole disputed property.

Issue (ii): whether the suit was barred by limitation and whether the decree required modification as to the one anna share and the condition regarding payment of the whole mokurari rent.

Analysis: Limitation depended on when possession became adverse within the meaning of Article 144 of the Second Schedule of Act XV of 1877. The evidence did not show adverse possession for twelve years before suit, so the claim was within time. As to relief, the relinquishment of possession and receipt of the consideration by the Raja were sufficient to maintain the plaintiff's right to the one anna share, and the condition compelling payment of the entire mokurari rent raised a question not properly decided in the suit.

Conclusion: The suit was not barred by limitation, the one anna share was to be included in the decree, and the condition requiring payment of the whole mokurari rent was to be omitted.

Final Conclusion: The decree was affirmed in substance but varied to enlarge the plaintiff's recovery to the extent found due and to remove the rent condition, with the remainder left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: In a benami arrangement, beneficial ownership follows the real owner proved by the evidence, and limitation under Article 144 runs only from the time adverse possession is clearly established.

---