A trespasser cannot claim benami rights over a property, and the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, is not applicable to cases where the alleged benamidar is a rank trespasser and has no propinquity with the ostensible owner.

( 1 ) THIS rule is directed against the order No. 106 dated 29. 6. 1991, passed by the ld. Munsif, 4th Court, Sealdah, in Misc. Case No. 161 of 1984. The main thrust of the application preferred under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure was that, that the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 snapped of not only the right title interest of the decree holder-opposite parties but also the possession with respect to the disputed property. The title to the property never developed on the decree holder-opposite parties.

( 2 ) REJECTION of the application under section 47 by the learned court below has pushed them to revision for the desired objective.

( 3 ) IN the background of the rejection of the claim of the judgment-debtors, I shall now set out the factual premises of the case in which the instant litigation was launched.

( 4 ) THE plaintiff-decree holder Jagadish Sur, since deceased, came by the disputed property of which one Subarnalata Dutta was the ostensible owner. The title to the property was perfected by a series of litigations fought between the plaintiff-decree holder including his successors-in-interest and the judgment-debtors followed by affirmation in the appeal. Even, the apex court in the state was approached for the relief.

( 5 ) TO stall the right of the decree holder-opposite parties, there was a spate of litigations of which the judgment-debtors were the authors. The suit by cooperative societies against the decree holder-opposite parties for recovery of the suit property and for permanent injunction is awaiting decision.

( 6 ) THE decree holder-opposite parties when put the decree into execution passed in the title suit, triggered off a dispute in the executing court to forestall the execution of decree.

( 7 ) IT is needless to repeat, that the judgment-debtors in order to subterfuge the execution of the decree passed in title suit 565 of 1973, preferred an application with a sinister motive to snatch an order at the peril of the interest of the decree holders.

The determination of the question is if, there is any scope for interference with the order by a court of revision in exercise of the power under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

( 8 ) THE learned Advocate, Mr. Chakraborty, appearing for the decree holder-opposite parties has most laboriously and succinctly contended that the order impugned does not call for any interference from the court of revision. The claim of the judgment-debtors has been assailed in various courts which could not help keeping their fingers crossed to the claim of the judgment-debtors, on the basis of tangible materials on record. The present assault on the right of the decree holder-opposite parties with the aid of section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not susceptible to bout fact and law.

( 9 ) THE learned Advocate appearing for the judgment-debtors has seriously disputed that the impugned order is manifestly illegal as the foundation of the right, title and possession of the decree holder-opposite parties, since regulated by the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, the learned executing court overlooked it and straight away dismissed the application preferred under section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It has been further contended by him that the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 is retrospective in operation and appropriately applicable to pending suits where appeal and execution are no exception. The appeal since the rehearing of the suit, it is applicable fully. Another side fact has been contended that execution originates from the decree and, therefore, the provisions of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 are not beyond the reach of suit, appeal and execution. It is a continuing process until discharge, execution and satisfaction of the decree are made.

( 10 ) I have been addressed by both the learned Advocates on the aforesaid points which invite careful consideratio