In the present case, the appellants did not prove that the transaction (to which they were not parties) wasbenami; on the contrary, the appellant's argument was merely that the transaction could not be said to be for a consideration in excess of Rs. 1,30,000/-:in the context of a defense in a suit for money decree.The defendant/appellants never said that the plaintiff or someone other than the purchaser was the real owner; nor was the interest in the property, the subject matter of the recovery suit. Therefore, in the opinion of this court, the conclusions and the findings in the impugned judgment are justified.