JUDGMENT : Barman, J. - The unsuccessful Plaintiff in the courts below is the Appellant. This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the Plaintiff for a declaration that the ale of the suit-land in the name of one Damodar Swar, father of Defendants 4 and 5 and husband of Defendant No. 3 is benami and that the Plaintiff is the real purchaser and for possession. 2. The Plaintiff's case is that Defendant No. 2 and his brother Narasingh Jena were the owners of the suit-land along with other lands. They sold the suit-land along with the other lands, the total area being 5.80 acres, to Damodar Swar and the Plaintiff for a consideration of Rs. 300 under a registered sale deed dated May 1, 1943 Ext. 1. The area of the land in dispute which the Plaintiff claims is 1.88 acres out of the said 5.80 acres sold under Ext. 1. The Plaintiff is said to be a caste man of Defendants 2, 3, 4 and 5. It was arranged that the sale of the suit-land (1.88 acres) was in favour of the Plaintiff for Rs. 100 which was, paid by the Plaintiff. It is said that there was a family quarrel between the Plaintiff and his nephew in about the time of the sale. Therefore to avoid future trouble the Plaintiff purchased the suit-land in the name of Damodar Swar who was his caste man, neighbour and an intimate friend. On the death of Damodar the Plaintiff approached his widow Defendant No. 3, to execute a deed of reconvene in respect of the suit-land. Defendants 3 to 5 executed a sale deed in favour of Defendant No. 1 at the instance of Defendant No. 2 the husband of Defendant No. 1. 3. In the Plaintiff's suit for declaration that the impugned sale of the suit-land (1.88 acres) in the name of Damodar is benami Defendants 1 and 2 filed written statement and contested the suit. Defendants 3, 4 and 5 were set exparte. The defence of contesting Defendants 2 and 1 who are husband and wife, is that there was no sale either in favour of the Plaintiff or Damodar as alleged that Defendants 1 and 2 are Bhag tenants of Damodar as Kaida (security for loan) for pertinence in respect of the suit land. 4. The defence of contesting Defendants 2 and 1 who are husband and wife, is that there was no sale either in favour of the Plaintiff or Damodar as alleged that Defendants 1 and 2 are Bhag tenants of Damodar as Kaida (security for loan) for pertinence in respect of the suit land. 4. The trial Court disbelieved the Plaintiff's case of V benami and dismissed the suit. In appeal the learned lower appellate Court confirmed the decision of the trial court on the finding, inter alia, that no consideration was paid by the Plaintiff. 5. The points urged on behalf of the Plaintiff Appellant are these the impugned sale was benami the custody of the document Ext. 1 is with the Plaintiff who produced it in court. The Plaintiff also claims to be in possession of the suit land and relied on rent receipts Ext. 2 to Ext. 2 c purporting to show payment of rent. Ext. 2 b dated April 12, 1953, Ext. 2 dated December 21, 1953 and Ext. 3 dated March 21,1958 are the rent receipts. 6. It is to be noticed that the Plaintiff challenges only a portion of the transaction namely in respect of 1.88 acres out of the total area of 5.80 acres sold under the sale deed Ext. 1. Therefore, the Plaintiffs implied admission is that the document so far as the rest of the properties are concerned is genuine and not benami. The Plaintiff states that he paid Rs. 100 out of the total consideration of Rs. 300 - under Ext. 1. The Plaintiff's case is that he paid this sum of Rs. 100 - for the purchase of the suit land 1.88 acres. Thus the peculiar circumstance in this case is that the impugned sale deed Ext. 1 is a consolidated one in respect of the suit land and other lands for a consolidated price of Rs. 300. If indeed a part of the land was intended to be purchased by the Plaintiff benami in the name of Damodar as alleged by the Plaintiff, normally the Plaintiff would have got a separate sale deed for his portion of the land which he intended to be purchased benami as alleged. 7. The question whether Damodar Swar was a mere benamidar for the Plaintiff is essentially a question fact. As their Lordships of the Supreme Court laid down in Meenakshi Mills, Madurai Vs. 7. The question whether Damodar Swar was a mere benamidar for the Plaintiff is essentially a question fact. As their Lordships of the Supreme Court laid down in Meenakshi Mills, Madurai Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras, the question of benami is purely a question of fact and not a mixed question of law and fact as it does not involve the application of any legal principle for its determination. The law with respect to benami transactions where the property has been alleged to have been bought in another's name is well settled. The burden of proof is to begin with on the party pleading that the transaction is benami. A variety of circumstances are relevant in this connection like the source of the consideration for the acquisition of the property, possession of the property, custody of the title deed and so on. The most important fact, however, is the source of the money, but the other facts also play varying parts suspicious circumstances are not sufficient to prove the benami character of a transaction. 8. In the present case, the learned lower appellate Court thoroughly discussed the evidence in his judgment and came to his conclusion after consideration of the respective cases of the parties by reference to the evidence. He found that the motive alleged by the Plaintiff is not sufficient for the alleged benami transaction. The reasoning on which the learned lower appellate, Court had disbelieved the Plaintiff's case of alleged benami is this the failure of the Plaintiff to establish a satisfactory motive for a benami sale in favour of Damodar Swar and his failure to prove that he paid Rs. 100 - out of the consideration price of Rs. 300 - under Ext. 1 coupled with the circumstance that the alleged benami is only in respect of a part of the lands sold under Ext. 1, I think the learned trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion that the Plaintiff has failed to prove that the sale of the suit lands under Ext. 1 is benami. 9. The learned lower appellate Court also rightly took the view that the mere custody of the title deed Ext. 1 even if coupled with the possession of the suit lands by the Plaintiff are not sufficient circumstances to show that the sale of the suit lands under Ext. 1 was benami. 1 is benami. 9. The learned lower appellate Court also rightly took the view that the mere custody of the title deed Ext. 1 even if coupled with the possession of the suit lands by the Plaintiff are not sufficient circumstances to show that the sale of the suit lands under Ext. 1 was benami. Indeed since Damodar was already dead it is not known how the Plaintiff became the custodian of the sale deed. 10. As regards possession, for the reasons fully discussed by the learned lower appellate Court, he rightly found that the rent receipts will not help the Plaintiff and cannot be construed that the Plaintiff paid rent for the suit lands thereunder. I agree with his conclusion that the Plaintiff failed to prove his possession of the suit lands. 11. In the ultimate analysis, therefore, in view of the clear finding by the Court below that the impugned sale is not benami which is a pure question of fact, this Court in second appeal is not to interfere. 12. In this view of the case, the decision of the Court below is upheld. This appeal is dismissed with costs. Final Result : Dismissed