JUDGMENT M.P. Saxena, J. - Mohammad Hafiz Khan, plaintiff, has filed this second Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 19-8-1971 passed by the land Addl. District Judge, Varanasi. 2. In brief the facts are that the plaintiff-appellant had filed that suit for declaration that he is the owner of house No. 82/9, situate in Mohalla Orderly Bazar, Varanasi. According to him he had purchased it from his funds on 21-4-1944 but had got the sale deed executed in the name of his mother on account of respect and regard for her. It was also alleged by him that he was living in the house and his mother had promised to surrender the house in his favour but under the pressure of other sons she was not prepared to do so. 3. The defendant-respondent had contested that suit inter alia, on the grounds that she was the real owner of the house and it was purchased by her out of her own money that the plaintiff was a minor at the time of the said purchase and was incapable of purchasing it ; that she was exercising acts of ownership in respect of the house and the suit was barred by time. 4. The learned trial court agreed with the plaintiffs contention and decreed the suit. The defendant filed an appeal and the learned lower appellate court reversed the finding of the trial court. He came to the conclusion that the plaintiff was not the owner of the disputed house. The appeal was allowed and the suit was dismissed. Hence the second appeal by the plaintiff. 5. The sole point for determination is whether the plaintiff appellant in the owner of the disputed house. According to him he had purchased it benami in the name of his mother, defendant-respondent. There is no gain saying the fact that the burden of proving that the sale deed was benami lies on the person who asserts benami transaction. In the instant case this burden lay on the plaintiff and he had to discharge it by clear, cogent and convincing evidence. Obviously for deciding this question it is necessary to consider as to who had paid the sale consideration ; how the house was being dealt with by the parties and who is in possession of it and the title deed. There is no controversy that the sale deed. Ext. Obviously for deciding this question it is necessary to consider as to who had paid the sale consideration ; how the house was being dealt with by the parties and who is in possession of it and the title deed. There is no controversy that the sale deed. Ext. A1, came from the possession of the defendant-respondent. The oral evidence consisted of the statements of the plaintiff and the defendant only. In his statement the plaintiff-appellant clearly gave out that he was not present at the time of registration of the sale deed. He further admitted that the electric connection was in the name of his father and notice of the house tax was also coming in the name of his father. The house of his father is adjacent to the disputed house and the same number is given to both the houses in the registers of the Municipal Board. He also admitted that the electric meter in this house in the name of his brother. According to his own showing he has not done anything in connection with this house. He could not produce even a single receipt about construction of this house or payment of taxes. He was inclined to say that he purchased this house out of his salary. According to his own showing he was married at the age of 21 or 22 years. The sale deed in question was executed 7 or 8 years before that. It means that he was 14 or 15 years of age at that time. His contention that he was employed in the Civil Court as a peon and purchased the house out of that income is rendered incredible because he could not be in Government service at the age of 14 or 15 years. He did not file convincing proof of his age in 1944. For all these reasons his own statement failed miserably to prove that the house was purchased by him in the name of his mother. Much capital cannot be made out of the defendants statement when the plaintiffs own testimony failed miserably to substantiate his contention. For all these reasons the learned lower appellate court rightly held that it was not a benami transaction and the house was purchased by the defendant-respondent by her own money. Her husband was a daftari in the Civil Court and the bouse was purchased for Rs. 150/-. For all these reasons the learned lower appellate court rightly held that it was not a benami transaction and the house was purchased by the defendant-respondent by her own money. Her husband was a daftari in the Civil Court and the bouse was purchased for Rs. 150/-. It was not a big sum which she could not hare saved out of the income of her husband. 6. For all these reasons the appeal has no force and is accordingly dismissed with costs on parties.