JUDGMENT Sapru, J. - The Plaintiff, Mst. Mahadei, is the Appellant in this case. The suit cut of which this appeal arises was brought by Mst. Mahadei for a declaration that she was the owner of the property in dispute and that it was not liable to attachment and sale in execution of the decree No 170 of 1932, which the Defendants-Respondents bad obtained against her husband Jagannath. It appears that in 1937 one Lachmi Narain obtained a decree against her husband Jagannath. In execution of that decree he wanted to sell the property, which is a residential house, in dispute. Mst. Mahadei, thereupon filed her objection under Order 21, Rule 58, to the effect that the property was hers. On the date of the hearing of this objection no appearance in Court was put in by her and the objection was dismissed in her absence. It appears that there was another objection filed by her of the same nature and this was dismissed on the 12th of September, 1942, also for default. Thereafter she brought the suit out of which this arises. 2. The defence to this suit was that her husband Jagannath might have made fictitious and benami transactions of the property in favour of his wife Mahadei in order to defraud his creditors and that the Plaintiff could not be permitted to take legal advantage of the fraud of her husband. In other words, the defence was that the transaction was benami in character and that the Plaintiff was not in fact the owner of the property in dispute but that the property was that of her husbond. 3. The trial Court decreed the Plaintiff's suit and came to the conclusion that she was the owner of the property in dispute. This decree of the trial Court was set aside by the lower appellate Court which held that the Plaintiff had failed to prove that she was the owner of the disputed house. It is against this judgment of the lower appellate Court that the Plaintiff has appealed. 4. Learned Counsel for the aopellant has argued that the lower appellate Court has acted on certain presumptions. It has been strenuously contended by him that the lower appellate Court has proceeded upon the presumption that property purchased by a wife must necessarily be presumed to be purchased from funds supplied by the husband. 4. Learned Counsel for the aopellant has argued that the lower appellate Court has acted on certain presumptions. It has been strenuously contended by him that the lower appellate Court has proceeded upon the presumption that property purchased by a wife must necessarily be presumed to be purchased from funds supplied by the husband. A married woman is capable of holding and acquiring property, and there is, as far as I know, no presumption that property purchased in the name of a married woman belongs to her husband; to this extent the contention of the learned Counsel for the Appellant is undoubtedly correct. 5. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has relied upon the case of Hari Ram v. Kundan Lal, AI R 1932 Lab. 193, where it was held by Shadi Lal, C. j that there was no presumption that when a document stands in the name of a woman the property conveyed by it must be deemed to belong to the husband. It was further laid down in that case that the onus was clearly upon the person alleging the transaction to be benami to show that the apparent state of things is not the real state of things; in other words, that the person who appears as the owner on the face of the deed is not the real owner. Reference was made in this case to the judgment of their Lordships of the Privy Council in Sura Lakshmiah Chetty v. Kothandarama Pillai, (1925) 018 Mad 606 (p. c ), where the test laid down by their Lordships in regard to benami transaction was the source of the purchase money. 6. Reliance was also placed by learned Counsel for the Appellant upon the case of Hira Lal v. Mst. Jamna, AIR 1931 All 866, where it was held by Niamat Ullah J. that the onus of proving the benami character of the transaction lies on the Defendant who alleges it. It is, in other words, for the party alleging that the property is benami to prove it be so. 7. A careful reading of the judgment of the learned Judge, however, discloses that he has not departed from the principles laid down in the cases to which reference has been made above. It is, in other words, for the party alleging that the property is benami to prove it be so. 7. A careful reading of the judgment of the learned Judge, however, discloses that he has not departed from the principles laid down in the cases to which reference has been made above. In asmuch as the Plaintiff was seeking to go behind the judgment of the execution Court under Order 21, Rule 58, against her, it was for her initially to prove that it was she, and not her husband Jagannath, who was the owner of the property which was being sought to be attached This burden she did not discharge for the reasons which have been stated with clarity by the lower appellate Court. She did not agree to go into the witness box, nor did she produce her father who was admittedly alive and who was, or ought to have been, in a position to disclose the source of the money from which the house was purchased. The executant of the sale deed by whom the bouse was tranferred to her in 1915 was not produced. It is true that the Plaintiff produced, as one her witnesses the scribe of the document who was about eighty-nine years old, but the learned Judge points out that the scribe was unable to say anything about the consideration of the sale deed It is true that there is no rule of law which lays down that the husband must be deemed to be the owner of property standing in the name of his wife. It may further be that it is not uncommon in this country to purchase property in the name of a wife or other female relations, but it is unnecessary to go into ail those questions in this case as the learned Judge has definitely come to the conclusion that the Plaintiff's evidence that the property belonged to her is not reliable. It may be pointed cut that one of the reosons which influenced the lower appellate. Court's judgment was the tact that her own evidence disclosed that her husband Jagannath had got the sale deed executed in her name. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the lower appellate Court has proceeded upon any wrong presumptions of law in this case. 8. Court's judgment was the tact that her own evidence disclosed that her husband Jagannath had got the sale deed executed in her name. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the lower appellate Court has proceeded upon any wrong presumptions of law in this case. 8. The definite finding of the learned Civil Judge is that the Plaintiff is not the owner of the disputed house. Behind that finding It is not competent for this Court to go The appeal, is therefore, concluded by a finding of fact which I am bound to respect. 9. The result is that I dismiss the Plaintiff's appeal with costs. Leave to file a Letters Patent Appeal is refused.