The Calcutta Weekly Notes. Monday August 28 1939

One of the questions concerns members of the Appelate Side Bar in the High Court and the other concerns members of the District Bar. [...] The material language of the statute is that on an application being made the Court or the Revenue Officer may pass an order restoring possession of the land to the mortgagor. [...] As to the point that an order refusing to restore possession is not stated in the statute to have the force of a decree we may refer to decisions under the Parttion Act which have held that since an oder giving liberty to members of a family to buy up the share of a stranger co-sharer has the force of a decree an order refusing such liberty will have the same force. [...] For it is clear that no benami puchase can even be otherwise than as the rsult of an agreement of some sort between the principal and the benamdar; nor does the fact that the principal claims to have provided a part of the purchase money and to be entitled to only a share in the prperty purchased make any difference in principle. [...] The section would be a bar even if the suit is not brought against the certfied purchaser so long as the success of the plaintiff depends on the proof of the alleged agreement.