Short Note : The learned trial Judge found that the defendant No.1 was the married wife of Nathoodas and that Nathoodas has purchased the suit land for the plaintiff and, as such, the defendant No. 1 had no right or title to sell the suit land to the defendant No.2 and the other defendants got no valid title. As such, the plaintiff's suit for possession was decreed. In appeal, the learned Additional District Judge disagreed with the finding of the trial Court that Narhoodas has purchased the suit land for the plaintiff and instead came to the conclusion that the suit land was purchased by Nathoodas for himself in the name of the plaintiff and he never intended to purchase the suit land for the plaintiff. Accordingly, the appellate Judge reversed the decree and dismissed the plaintiff's suit. Held : It is now well settled by decision of the Supreme Court in Surusaibalini v. Phanindra Mohan, AIR 1965 SC 1364 that the peculiarity of the English law in which there is a presumption of an advancement but as there is no such presumption in India, theory of advancement is not applicable here. The Court will presume an ostensible owner to be the real owner unless the plaintiff who seek to assert the contrary pleads and proves that the ostensible owner is not the real owner. While source from which the money came is undoubtedly a valuable test, it cannot be considered to be the sole or conclusive criterion. For, the question whether a particular transaction is Benami or not is one of intention and there may be other circumstances to negative the prima facie intention from the fact that the purchase money was supplied by or belong to another. The position of the parties, their relation to one another, the motive which could govern their actions and their subsequent conduct may well rebut the presumption. Mulla on his Hindu Law in section 604 has commented that a property purchased in the name of the plaintiff would be Benami unless there was intention to benefit the plaintiff. Here, the Court below came to the conclusion that there was no intention either on the part of Nathoodas or the defendant No.1 to purchase the suit land for the benefit of the plaintiff. Here, the Court below came to the conclusion that there was no intention either on the part of Nathoodas or the defendant No.1 to purchase the suit land for the benefit of the plaintiff. There is no pleading or evidence worth the name to show that they intended to purchase the suit land for the benefit of the plaintiff. Simply because the suit land was purchased in the name of the plaintiff by the defendant No.1, the transaction only will be Benami unless the defendant No.1 intended to purchase the land for the benefit of the plaintiff. The defendant No.1 has given explanation as to why she purchased the suit land in the name of her step daughter. This was because the defendant No.1 was already owning certain other lands on her name. The evidence also shows that all through the defendant No.1 has been dealing with this land and was in cultivating possession thereof. When she sold the land to the defendant No.2 in 1959, no objection was raised by the plaintiff. AIR 1965 SC 1364 relied on. Appeal dismissed.