JUDGMENT Blank, J. - This is an appeal from a decision of the learned District Judge of Chittagong, reversing a decision of the learned Munsif, First Court. Patiya, in the same district The plaintiff's case briefly was that the land of sch. 1 is a homestead and that of Sch. 2 is a tank. Abdulla had one-third share, Abdul Rahaman one-third and Abdul Jalil and Abdul Latif the remaining one-third share in the two scheduler. The plaintiff's case detailed the devolution of the shares in the land among the various successors in interest and the claim of the plaintiff was 10/21st share in Sch. 1 and 9/14th share in Sch. 2. The common defence of the defendants was that the plaintiff had no title and possession to the land in suit and in particular of defendants 1 to 3 and 21 that the suit land belonged to one Jennatulla Munshi who had two wives, Abdulla, Abdur Rahaman and Karimannessa being issues by his first, wife and Abdul Jalil, Abdul Wahed and Sherajunnessa by his second wife. It should be stated that defendant 21 is one of the respondents to the appeal. Omitting the defences of other defendants the defence of defendants 23 and 24, also respondents to the appeal, was that Abdulla had one sixth share and his son E-mail and daughters Nurjehan and Nurchasma, mother of defendant 24, inherited his share and the disposal of the interest in this behalf is also detailed. The learned Munsif found inter alia that the defence that the two kobalas in the suit were collusive and benami and that they were brought in existence by Esmail for fear of creditors failed. He observed that there was absolutely no evidence to prove collusion or the benami nature of the transaction and not a single mortgage bond had been produced to show Esmail's indebtedness. The learned Munsif proceeded to discuss the share claimable by the plaintiff and found it to be 687/403th. He, therefore, decreed the suit in a preliminary form in part. 2. On appeal the learned District Judge discussed the evidence relating to the kobalas in considerable detail. The learned Munsif proceeded to discuss the share claimable by the plaintiff and found it to be 687/403th. He, therefore, decreed the suit in a preliminary form in part. 2. On appeal the learned District Judge discussed the evidence relating to the kobalas in considerable detail. He observed: "The main point for decision in this appeal is whether the documents on which the plaintiff rests his claim to the land in dispute were benami or not." The learned Judge disbelieves the plaintiff's story that the originals of the kobalas were missing; he observes that it is an admitted fact that the whole of the disputed land is recorded in the possession of the defendants in the Revisional Survey record of rights, said at the bar to have been published in 1928; that there is no evidence on which he could hold that the presumption attaching to the entries in the record of rights has been rebutted; and finally that about four years after his alleged purchase Esmail is still found dealing with a portion of the land which he purports to have sold to the plaintiff. The foregoing is with regard to the kobala executed by Esmail. With regard to the kobala executed by Jabeda Khatun and others, the learned Judge observes that none of the witnesses to the kobala is examined to show that consideration really passed; that the document was still left with at least one of the executants, namely Jabeda who presented it for registration; and that although the purchase was made as far back as 1915 the plaintiff cannot produce a single rent receipt and his name nowhere appears in the Revisional Survey record of rights; the preparation of which began long after the alleged purchase. The learned Judge, therefore, found that both the kobalas "represent only paper transactions without any consideration so that the plaintiff did not acquire any title to the land in dispute on the strength of either of these two." He accordingly set aside the decree passed by the trial court and dismissed the suit. 3. In the present appeal Mr. Chandra Sekhar Sen for the appellant contends that Esmail and his three daughters, the plaintiff's vendors were co-sharers and, therefore, even if the plaintiff is found to be a benamidar he is entitled to maintain the suit, the title of the vendors not being disputed. Mr. 3. In the present appeal Mr. Chandra Sekhar Sen for the appellant contends that Esmail and his three daughters, the plaintiff's vendors were co-sharers and, therefore, even if the plaintiff is found to be a benamidar he is entitled to maintain the suit, the title of the vendors not being disputed. Mr. Sen does not attack the finding of benami by the Court of appeal below. He refers to the decision of the Privy Council, in 46 Cal. 566 Gur Narayan v. Sheolal Singh ('18) 5 A. I. R. 1918 P. C. 140 : 46 Cal. 566 : 46 I. A. 1: 49 I. C. 1 (P. C.), as authority for the proposition he sets up. He submits that the Court of appeal below should have gone into the question whether the vendors had lost their title and asks for the finding of the Court of appeal below to be reversed and for an enquiry to be directed into the share of the scheduled lands to which the plaintiff is entitled. For the respondents Mr. Rohini Binod Rakshit submits that the Privy Council decision has no application and refers to the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in A. I. R. 1923 Cal. 536 Damodar Mandal v. Karumal Ali ('23) 10. A. I. R. 1923 Cal. 536. In that case it was held that a benamidar has no right to bring a suit claiming title and for possession when he is suing in effect the beneficial owner. The learned Judges referred to the Privy Council decision mentioned above and observed that that decision had no bearing on the present case in which the benamidar, the plaintiff, was in effect suing the beneficial owner and consequently he had no right to bring a suit claiming title and for possession of the land. It is common ground thai in this case heirs of the beneficial owner were parties, namely, defendants 21, 23 and 24, all respondents to this appeal. The learned advocate also refers to the finding of the learned Judge that the transfers are not only benami transfers but also sham transfers. In reply, Mr. Chandra Sekhar Sen points out that the heirs of the vendors were brought in to cure a defect of parties pleaded by the defendants; in my view, however, this is not material. The learned advocate also refers to the finding of the learned Judge that the transfers are not only benami transfers but also sham transfers. In reply, Mr. Chandra Sekhar Sen points out that the heirs of the vendors were brought in to cure a defect of parties pleaded by the defendants; in my view, however, this is not material. He candidly concedes that if the finding of the learned District Judge is construed as a finding that the kobalas were mere paper transactions he has no case. On my reading of the findings of the learned Judge summarised above it is clear that the finding most be taken as finding that the kobalas were not genuine transactions. The result is that the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.