Appellant obtained a decree against defendant. Appellant impleaded wife of defendant and sought to attach properties standing in name of wife of defendant. Court held that question of benami transaction did not arise in this case, in view of fact that property stood in name of wife and benami transaction and nature of purchase were not established except by stating that first respondent wife had no independent sources of income. Mere fact that property purchased in name of wife from and out of sources of income from husband, would not construe that said purchase fell under provisions of Benami Act. When property was purchased before decree and it was brought to notice of Court that before promissory note which was basis for decree in original suit, then, there was no reason to arrive a conclusion that property fell under provisions of Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act and liable to be attached in order to realise decree amount.