The court held that there was no substantial question of law involved in the appeals and found no merit in them. The appeals were dismissed.

( 1 ) CHALLENGING the judgment dated September 5, 1986 and the decree dated September 17, 1986 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Second Court, Nadia in Title Appeal Nos. 102 of 1985 and 103 of 1985 affirming the judgments dated 1. 3. 1985 and decree dated 11. 3. 1985 passed by the learned Munsif, Second Court at Ranaghat, Nadia in T. S. No. 706 of 1980 these two second appeals have been preferred. The Title Suit No. 380 of 1980 and Title Suit No. 706 of 1980 were tried analogously and by a single judgment both the suits were disposed of. Accordingly, Title Appeal No. 102 of 1985 and 103 of 1985 were also heard analogously and both the appeals were disposed of by a single judgment. The back-drop of the appeals as come out from the records is, inter alia, as follows:

( 2 ) NALINI Kr. Majumder being the plaintiff filed Title Suit No. 474 of 1978 on 14. 12. 1978 and on transfer it was renumbered as Title Suit No 380 of 1980 against Dwijendra Kr. Sil being the defendant. This suit is a suit for declaration of title mandatory injunction and eviction of a licensee. In Title Suit No. 380 of 1980 the plaintiff alleged that the suit land belonged to him and the defendant, Dwijendra Kr. Sil was his very close friend. The defendant was a tenant in respect of one shop room with tile shed and in that room defendant had for something done manure business during the end of Baishak, 1382. The defendant Dwijendra approached the plaintiff Nalini and stated that there is possibility of getting a licence of husking machine in his name and in order to get the licence the defendant was to produce title deed in his favour before the competent authority. Being convinced, Nalini agreed to execute one sham deed and thereafter to avoid Income tax clearance the plaintiff executed 3 sham deeds in favour of the defendant and it was agreed that the same will remain in the custody of their party. The plaintiff had no intention to execute deeds and no consideration money passed and the said deeds have never been acted upon. In this context, it is stated that in the meantime the defendant had already filed Title Suit No. 192 of 1978 on 15. 4. 1978 claiming the suit land as his own property and thus finding no alternative the plaintiff had to file this suit and had to pray for declaration that the three sale dated 31. 5. 1975 were illegal, void, without consideration, paper transaction and not binding upon plaintiff Nalini and for permanent injunction on restraining Dwijendra from transferring the suit property and for other reliefs. The defendant contested the suit by filing written statement and denied all the material allegations made in the plaint. According to the defendant the suit is not maintainable for various technical defects. According to the defendant, the suit land originally belonged to plaintiff Nalini and he sold away the property to defendant Dwijendra by registered kobala executed on 2. 6. 1975 on payment of consideration money of Rupees Ten thousand. After purchase the defendant raised pucca construction (two rooms) in the suit land by the said rooms and he installed different machines in the tiled room and he is in possession. The plaintiff had a shop room over national highway and it was demolished at the time of emergency in 1970 and finding no alternative the plaintiff Nalini approached the defendant to permit him to use one of his rooms as a shop room and considering the difficulties of Nalini Dwijendra permitted to use one and thus the plaintiff is a licensee under the defendant and several times defendant asked the plaintiff to vacate his shop room which refused and the defendant thus for the said reason prayed for dismissal of the suit of Nalini, Dwijendra filed two Title Suit 192 of 1978 (557 of 1980) but some mistakes being there in that suit Dwijendra withdrew that suit and filed Title Suit No. 706 of 1980 on 3. 12. 1980. Plaint case of Dwijendra in T. S. 706 of 1980 is same as defence case in 380 of