Raj Kumar Jagannath Prashad Singh vs Syed Abdullah on 18 March, 1918
11. If, as a matter of law, a benamdar's heirs cannot represent the true owner, we agree that the position of the defendants in the mortgage suit would be that of third parties, assisting Sudhakar's sons and the decree could not be binding on them by reason of such assistance. The element of an initial representation that Sudhakar's sons were the true owners would be lacking. We think also that the recital in the deed of transfer is not by itself sufficient to make the sons benamdars, for it appears to UP to be nothing more than one of the usual formalities of a draft of an absolute conveyance. We would even concede that it is possible to argue that the observation in Jagannath Prasad Singh v. Syed Abdullah 5 A.I.R. 1918 P.C. 35 does not represent a decision that the status of a benamdar is heritable. The judgment proceeds on the ground of estoppel against the true owner and persons claiming under him with respect to a transfer by a son of the benamdar. This transfer was made at the express instance of the true owner, Raja Bhikham; and the sentence. "Kashinath was a trustee for Raja Bhikham and Lajjadhari could only succeed to his father's trusteeship," may simply mean that the only right in which Lajjadhari could have been made to deal with the property, if he had any right at all, being the right of an heir to his father's trusteeship for the Raja and no other right, his act was an act of the Raja by which the latteic was bound. The observation may contain only an interpretation of the act of Lajjadhari rathei than a statement of his legal status.