RAJ KUMAR SANT BALABHACHARY Vs. SAWO DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 18.8.2000 passed in Title Appeal No. 111 of 1989 by 1st Additional District Judge, Nalanda, reversing the judgment and decree dated 10.8.1989 passed by Munsif, Biharsharif, Nalanda, being Eviction Suit No. 21 of 1988.

(2.) There is no dispute that the suit property originally belonged to Jamuna Sao, who had sold the same by registered sale deed dated 31.3.1072 (sic--1972?) to Janki Devi. However, the original plaintiff claimed title over the suit property on the basis of her purchase from the heirs of Janki Devi after her death by registered sale deed dated 30th March, 1988. This claim of the original plaintiff had been resisted by the original defendant Ram Patiya Devi on the ground that she was the real owner of the suit property, as she had purchased the suit property in the Benami name of Janki Devi. The defendant had also claimed to have perfected her title by remaining in adverse possession over the suit property for the statutory period. Initially, the suit was filed as eviction suit claiming eviction of the original defendant as well as the arrears of rent. However, subsequently the plaint was amended and the reliefs for declaration of title over the suit property and recovery of possession have been incorporated in the plaint.

(3.) In view of the admitted position that the suit property stood in the name of Janki Devi and from whose heirs the original plaintiff had claimed her title by purchase, the crucial question to be determined before the courts below was the plea of Benami purchase as asserted by the original defendant and further the plea of perfecting her title by adverse possession by the original defendant. On the first issue regarding the defence of Benami, both the courts have correctly come to the conclusion that the said defence was barred by the provision of Section 4(2) of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, and decided that issue against the defendant However, the trial court decided the issue of adverse possession in favour of the defendant and accordingly dismissed the suit.