PROMODE KUMAR PANDIT Vs. MRITUNJOY MUKHERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by defendant No. 1 and it arises out of a suit for declaration of title, confirmation of possession and injunction.

(2.) Shortly stated, the relevant facts lie within a short compass. The disputed property originally belonged to two brothers, Kumarish Dutt and Kaladhauta Dutta. The latter died, leaving behind his widow Kanaklata as his only heir. Thereafter, Kanaklata sold her interest on September 7, 1930 ostensibly to one Laksminarayan. The landlord filed Rent Suit No. 1105 of 1942 against Kumarish, Kanaklata and Mohini Chhutarini who, according to the plaintiff, was the real purchaser under the above sale from Kanaklata and Laksminarayan the ostensible purchaser was her benamdar. In the said suit, the landlord got a decree and in execution of that decree, Kumarish auction-purchased the holding in the benami of his sister's son Haradhan. According to the plaintiff, Kumarish, as the real auction-purchaser, was in possession since the date of the said auction sale until he sold the suit land to Dhananjoy and Kuranibala on April 3, 1948. From these two persons, the plaintiff purchased the suit property on Kartick 24, 1359 B.S., and he claims to have been in possession of the suit land since then. Thereafter, defendant No. 1 succeeded in a Section 9-proceeding which necessitated the present suit by the plaintiff.

(3.) The courts below have concurrently decreed the plaintiff's suit. Before the courts below, various defences were taken but, upon the findings, the position stands as follows : That Kumarish was the auction purchaser in the rent sale, mentioned hereinbefore, and Haradhan was his benamdar. That this is so is abundantly clear from the nadabi, executed by Haradhan in favour of Kumarish, making a declaration to that effect, on January 19, 1945.