BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA, ACJ.

(1.) This first appeal is at the instance of the substituted plaintiffs in a suit for declaration and injunction and is directed against a judgment and decree dated 14th September, 2001, passed by the learned Judge, Second Bench of the City Civil Court at Calcutta, in Title Suit No. 936 of 1987, thereby dismissing the said suit.

(2.) Being dissatisfied, the substituted plaintiffs have come up with the present first appeal.

(3.) The original plaintiff, the second son of the original defendant, filed in the City Civil Court at Calcutta a suit being Tide Suit No.936 of 1987 thereby praying for the following relief: "a) Decree for declaration that the Decree dated 17.3.87 passed by learned Judge, Second Bench, Small Causes Court, Calcutta in Suit No.2757/86 is void, inoperative and not binding on the plaintiff; b) Decree for declaration that the plaintiff has right, title interest in the suit property by the law of inheritance as son/heir of his deceased father; c) Decree for declaration that the Deed of Settlement registered at Registrar of Assurance and entered into Book No.1 Volume No. 154, Page No. 166 to 177 being No.3802 the year 1971 is void, inoperative and not binding on the plaintiff; d) Decree for declaration that the defendant was/is Benamder of alleged Sarat Kumar Paul, the deceased husband in respect of the suit property; e) Permanent injunction restraining the defendant and her men and agents from executing the said Decree dt. 17.3.87 passed by the learned Judge, Second Bench, Presidency Small Causes Court in Suit No.2757/86 and/or further restraining the Suit No.2757 of 1986 and/or further restraining the defendant and her men and agents from interfering and/or disturbing and/or intermeddling with the possession and enjoyment of the two rooms as described in the Schedule hereunder; f) Temporary injunction; g) Receiver; h) Costs; i) Any other relief or reliefs;"

(4.) The case made out by the plaintiff was that his father, late Sarat Kumar Paul, was a renowned businessman of Calcutta dealing in crockery, and amassed huge amount of money from such business by virtue of which he purchased many properties including the suit property which is 78, Hari Ghosh Street Lane and two other premises in the benami of his wife Smt. Durgarani Paul, the defendant. The said Sarat Kumar Paul died in the year 1966 and after his death, the defendant, in the year 1971, executed a deed of settlement in respect of the suit property thereby claiming herself to be the sole owner and made a provision of trust by appointing herself as the sole trustee with the stipulation that on her death, the trust will come to an end and her eldest son, will be the absolute beneficiary. Subsequently, the defendant filed a proceeding under section 41 of the Presidency Small Causes Act in the Small Causes Court at Calcutta for eviction of the plaintiff which was allowed. By taking aid of the said order of eviction, the defendant was trying to evict the plaintiff and hence, the suit was filed for declarations and injunction mentioned above.

(5.) The suit was contested originally by the defendant and subsequently, by the substituted defendants, thereby contending that Durga Rani Paul, the mother of the plaintiff, was the actual owner of the property who purchased the property in a Court-sale with her own money and thus, neither her husband nor the plaintiff had any right, title and interest over the same. The allegation of benami was totally denied.

(6.) At the time of hearing of the suit, one of the substituted plaintiffs, namely, Pratima Paul, deposed in support of the plaint case, while, one of the substituted defendants, namely, Smt. Rupa Paul, appeared as witness for the defendants to oppose the claim. The defendant No.6 Smt. Sankari Rani Saha, one of the daughters of the defendant, however, appeared as D.W.2 to support the plaintiff.

(7.) As indicated earlier, the learned Trial Judge, by the judgment and decree impu