9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (6) TMI 588X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his wife Lakhiya Devi vide sale deed no. 4334 of 1976, deed no. 1214 of 1982, deed no. 9268 of 1982, deed no. 358 of 1994, 2195 of 1994, deed no. 5655 of 1994, deed no. 10516 of 1994, deed no. 6927 of 1995 and deed no. 5792 of 1999, though he has paid the entire consideration money himself from his earnings. Lakhiya Devi, wife of the plaintiff is only name lender in the above sale deeds. The original plaintiff was in continuous cultivating possession over the suit land and also constructed residential house over Plot No. 217. The plaintiff's wife Lakhiya Devi died in the year 2005, leaving behind her husband (plaintiff), two sons and four daughters. The aforesaid land was running in the name of Lakhiya Devi, but the plaintiff himself paid the rent to the State Government and obtained rent receipt. The defendant no. 1 is one of the daughters of plaintiff and Lakhiya Devi and defendant no. 2 is son-in-law of defendant no. 1, who has brought his mother-in-law in collusion in order to raise dispute with regard to title of Original Plaintiff Bali Mahto in respect of suit land obtained a deed of Power of Attorney from defendant no. 1 on 21.09.2010 and thereafter, the defendant no. 2 on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... egal heirs. The husband (Plaintiff) was witness in the sale deeds. Not a single sale deed was executed in which consideration amount has been paid by the plaintiff. Since, the plaintiff was in possession of all the personal belonging of Lakhiya Devi being husband, as such, on her death, he got custody of all papers from her box, but this is no evidence claiming title and possession over the suit land, much less in total hostility and open denial of her own title. The Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act, 1988 does not recognize when wife acquired land for her own benefit as well as for the benefit of her legal heirs. The dispute cropped up between the defendant no. 1 and the plaintiff soon after the Shradh ceremony of Lakhiya Devi when all her daughters, son-in-law and sons participated and contributed. The defendant no. 1 asked plaintiff to partition the suit land according to her share and supplied photocopy of all original sale deeds, which the plaintiff assured, but did not comply the same. The defendant no. 1 got knowledge from few persons that plaintiff is in collusion with his sons and together they have made unholy alliance to deny any share to the daughter of Late Lakhiya ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al sale deed No. 6927 dated 18.07.1995 (with objection). Ext. 2 to 2/c - Rent receipts No. 5380230, 5380232, 5380233, 5380234. Ext. 3 - Original registered power of attorney executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of Defendant No. 2. 9. The defendants have also examined three witnesses on their behalf; namely, DW-1, Raju Mahto, DW-2, Ramdeo Sao and DW-3, Kamla Kuer. But, no documentary evidence has been adduced by the defendants in support of thier case. 10. The trial court has dismissed the suit of the plaintiff on contest with cost. 11. The plaintiff has preferred title appeal before the appellate court vide Title Appeal No. 47 of 2014. 12. The learned appellate court formulated following points for determination of the appeal:- I. Whether the sale deeds standing in the name of Lakhiya Devi was self-acquired property of the plaintiff? II. Whether the defendant no. 1 Kamla Kuer had valid right to execute any Power of Attorney with respect to the suit land and whether the Power of Attorney no. 10359/183 dated 21.09.2010 is valid, genuine and operative? III. Whether the suit is barred under the provisions of Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act, 1988? IV. Whether the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , it appears that Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act, 1988 came into force on 05.09.1988 and purchase under benami transaction is only prohibited after enactment of the Act, which is punishable under Sub-Section (3) of Section 3 of the Act. Section 2(a) of the said Act provides that Benami transaction means any transaction in which property is transferred to one person for a consideration paid or provided by another person. Section 3 of the said Act provides that, (i) No person shall enter into any Benami Transaction (ii) Nothing of sub-section 1 shall able to, (a) The purchase of property by any person in the name of his wife or unmarried daughter and it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the said property had been purchased for the benefits of his wife or the unmarried daughters. 18. The question particularly is that the purchase was Benami or not, which as a matter of fact, cannot be agitated in second appeal, when two courts have given concurrent finding. 19. The consistent case of the defendants is that Lakhiya Devi purchased the said property from her Stridhan ornaments, gifts and valuable assistance from her two sons and married daughters and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
