JUDGMENT Om Prakash, J. - This is second appeal by the defendants nos. 1 and 2 against the judgment and decree dated 21-11-1968 of the learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Allahabad, declaring the plaintiffs to be owners in possession and that they are entitled to realise the rent from the tenants of the disputed property, except to the extent ?th share of Abdul Hamid and thereby reversing the judgment and decree of the trial court dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs. 2. The dispute relates to five shops, situate at Fatehpur. The plaintiffs stated that the said shop had belonged to Smt. Humera Begum, wife of Sri Abdul Hamid. After the death of Humera Begum her daughters and grand daughters, who are plaintiffs, claimed themselves to be the owners in possession of the said shops, which were in occupation of the tenants. The defendants nos. 1 to 7 are the tenants. It is said that the disputed shop had been purchased under four sale-deeds (Exts. 11 to 14) during the years ranging from 1919 to 1923. On 16-12-1953 a decree was obtained by defendant no. 1 against defendant no. 3 on the ground that be was the owner of the subject matter of the suit, which was purchased by him from Sri Abdul Hamid in January 1953 by a registered sale-deed. The case of the plaintiffs is that this decree was surreptitiously obtained by the defendant no. 1. As the said decree of the defendant no. 1 casts clouds over the title of the plaintiffs, they have filed a suit for declaration. The defendants nos. 1 and 2 resisted the suit stating that Smt. Humera Begum and her daughter were merely benamidars and that Sri Abdul Hamid was the legal owner of the shops; that the entire sale considerations of all the sale-deeds, Exts. 11 to 14, flowed from Sri Abdul Hamid, that he later on made investment in the constructions ; that he let out the shops and realised rent and that no title w is vested in the benamidars. The trial court framed as many as 9 issues and dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs holding that they were merely benamidars and the disputed shops in reality belonged to Sri Abdul Hamid, who advanced the sale consideration. 3. The plaintiffs then preferred an appeal. The trial court framed as many as 9 issues and dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs holding that they were merely benamidars and the disputed shops in reality belonged to Sri Abdul Hamid, who advanced the sale consideration. 3. The plaintiffs then preferred an appeal. The lower appellate court relying on Smt. Surasaibalini Devi v. Phanindra Mohan Majumdar, ( AIR 1965 SC 1364 ) held that more than the sale consideration what was important was the intention and that the intention of Sri Abdul Hamid was fully demonstrated in the written statement (Ext. A-6), which was filed by him and the instant plaintiffs in suit No. 4 of 1941, which was filed by the grand children of Ali Hasan, who was the brother of Sri Ahmad Husain, through whom according to the plaintiffs the property was purchased by Smt. Humera Begum. In the suit No. 4 of 1941, the plaintiffs claimed that the real owner of the property in suit was Ahmad Husain, who had purchased the same in the name of Smt. Humera Begum. In the aforesaid written statement, Sri Abdul Hamid stated that the properties by the varying sale-deed (Exts. 11 to 14) had been purchased for the benefit of his wife and daughters, in whose names the sale-deeds were executed. Also it was held by the lower appellate court that the investment in the re-construction of the shops, the act of letting out the shops, realising rent thereof from the tenants and supervising the property tantamounts to an act of management only on the part of Abdul Hamid. He, therefore, reversed the judgment and decree of the trial court and decreed the suit. 4. Aggrieved the defendants nos. 1 and 2, i.e. transferees of Abdul Hamid, have filed this second appeal counsel for the appellants and Sri M.A. Qadeer, learned counsel for the plaintiff respondents. 5. The submissions of Sri Jagdish Swarup are that it is not disputed by the lower appellate court that the entire sale consideration for the sale-deeds, Exts. 11 to 14, flowed from Abdul Hamid and that to judge the benami character the consideration as to wherefrom the sale consideration has come will play a major role. 5. The submissions of Sri Jagdish Swarup are that it is not disputed by the lower appellate court that the entire sale consideration for the sale-deeds, Exts. 11 to 14, flowed from Abdul Hamid and that to judge the benami character the consideration as to wherefrom the sale consideration has come will play a major role. If the sale consideration was paid by Sri Abdul Hamid, then Sri Jagdish Swarup urged that Smt. Humera Begum and her daughter, from whom the plaintiffs claimed their title, would be held as benamidars especially in view of the fact that before the lower appellate court, the other findings as recorded by the trial court that Sri Abdul Hamid subsequently made investment in the re-constructions, he let out the shops to the tenants, he realised rent from them and kept the sale-deeds in his possession, were not seriously disputed. This being the position, he submits that the lower appellate court was not justified in reversing the judgment and decree of the trial court. 6. The short question for consideration in this appeal is as to what are the relevant principles to judge a benami transaction and whether they have been correctly applied by the learned lower appellate court. The lower appellate court relied on Smt. Surasaibalini Devi v. Phanindra Mohan Majumdar (supra) and extensively reproduced the most relevant observations of the Supreme Court from paragraph 31 on page 1372. From this paragraph, it clearly appears that the Supreme Court took the view that of course the source of the funds from which the purchase is made copuled with the manner of its enjoyment would be a very material factor for establishing the case of benami, but the mere proof of the source of the purchase money would not finally establish the benami nature of the defendant's title. It was also held that 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 inference from the fact that the purchase money was supplied by or belonged to another. It was also held that 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 inference from the fact that the purchase money was supplied by or belonged to another. From the perusal of the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge, it appears that he did not dispute the fact that the entire sale consideration under all the sale-deeds flowed from Sri Abdul Hamid, but then he following the decision of the Supreme Court took the view that was not the sole factor to hold the predecessors of the plaintiffs as benami of Sri Abdul Hamid. He was of the view that it is the intention of the person, who advanced the sale consideration, which was more important. He relied on the written statement (Ext. A-6), which was filed by Sri Abdul Hamid and the plaintiffs in suit No. 4 of 1941, which was filed by the grand-children of Sri All Hasan who was a brother of Sri Ahmad Hussain. The suit was that Sri Ahmad Hussain had purchased the shops under several sale-deeds in the name of Smt. Humera Begam and her children and, therefore, the plaintiffs of suit No. 4 of 1941 claimed the disputed shops through their predecessor in title, Sri Ahmad Hussain. While opposing the claim of the plaintiffs in Suit No. 4 of 1941, Sri Abdul Hamid stated in the written statement (Ext. A-6) that he got the sale deeds (Exts. 11 to 41) executed in the name of his wife Smt. Humera Begam and his daughters for their benefit. From this the learned Additional District Judge gathered the intention of Sri Abdul Hamid that the transactions in the name of Smt. Humera Begum and her daughters were not benami, but Sri Abdui Hamid decided to confer the entire benefit of the sale-deeds on his wife and daughters in whose names the sale-deeds executed. Having found so, the learned Additional District Judge accepted the claim of the plaintiffs, without going into the question as to who enjoyed the fruits of the property, i.e., rental income of the shops. Apart from sale consideration, the factor as to in which manner the subject matter of the sale-deeds was enjoyed, constituted a major factor even according to the Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Surasaibalini Devi v. Phanindra Mohan Majumdar (Supra). Apart from sale consideration, the factor as to in which manner the subject matter of the sale-deeds was enjoyed, constituted a major factor even according to the Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Surasaibalini Devi v. Phanindra Mohan Majumdar (Supra). No finding was recorded by the learned Additional District judge as to who appropriated the rental income of the shops, who remained in control of that and for whose benefit that was spent, it is at this stage, the learned Additional District Judge fell into a serious error. Mere assertion in the written statement (Ext. A-6) by Sri Abdul Hamid that the shops by varying sale-deeds had been purchased for the benefit of Smt. Humera Begum and her daughters, will not be a conclusive evidence of the fact that Sri Abdul Hamid did not retain ownership in the shops and that the shops were purchased exclusive for Smt. Humera Begum and her daughters. Still the main question remains as to who owned the rental income. The learned Additional District Judge did not dispute that after tale-deeds Exts. 11 to 14, the shops were reconstructed, the investment in the re-construction was made by Sri Abdul Hamid, the rent was realised by Sri Abdul Hamid and that the shops where let out by him. What the learned Additional District judge found is that the reconstruction of the shops, letting them out to tenants and realising their rent were all acts of management on his part. Without giving a finding on the crucial question as to who appropriated the rental income of the shops, who remained in control of such income and how this income was spent, the learned Additional District Judge concluded that whatever was done by Sri Abdul Hamid that was merely an act of management. If it is found that the income was also appropriated by Sri Abdul Hamid and he remained in control thereof and he used the same to the exclusion of the plaintiffs and their mother, then the view that has been taken by the learned Additional District Judge would be a correct view. Therefore, it is essential to record a finding on the question of appropriation and disbursement of income. Therefore, it is essential to record a finding on the question of appropriation and disbursement of income. The point is whether the rental income belonged to the plaintiffs and their mother and whether they exercised their control thereon as owner and whether that was used by Sri Abdul Hamid to the exclusion of the others. After giving a finding on this question, the learned Additional District Judge will decided the case afresh taking into consideration the entire circumstances. 7. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge are set aside and the case is remanded to him to re-decide the same in view of the aforesaid observations. The costs of the appeal will abide the ultimate result of the case.