IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, in determining the ownership of the suit property and the rights of the parties involved.

JUDGMENT :

Soumen Sen, J.

The appeal is arising out of a judgment and decree dated 20th June, 2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) 4th Court at Alipore in connection with two suits namely, T.S No. 87 of 2005 heard analogously with T.S.No. 61 of 2007.

2. Kalyani Jana (Sahoo) was the original plaintiff. She filed the suit being T.S. No. 164 of 1985 since renumbered as T.S. No. 87 of 2005 on 18th September, 1985 before the learned 7th Court of Subordinate Judge at Alipore. Subsequently, Ashis Kumar Sahoo and Debashis Kumar Sahoo filed a suit being T.S. No. 149 of 2003 since renumbered as T.S. No. 61 of 2007 in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) 5th Court, Alipore. Both the suits were heard analogously and disposed of a common judgment and decree dated 20th June, 2007.

3. This judgment and decree is under challenged.

4. During the pendency of the suit Kalyani died and she was substituted by her legal heirs. Presently her husband and children are contesting the appeal as the legal heirs of Kalyani.

5. The centre of dispute is premises no. 528/5, Becharam Chatterjee Road (Riffle Ground), P.S. Behala, Calcutta –700 034 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the suit property’).

6. Amulya Ratan Sahoo had three sons and two daughters. Kalyani is the eldest daughter. Ashis and Debashis are the sons Banani is the youngest daughter. Amulya alleged to have purchased the suit property under deed no. 499 dated 8th February, 1980 in the name of his two sons.

7. Kalyani claimed that she was not aware of the execution of the said deed at the relevant time and after her father promised to sell the southern and northern portion of the suit premises and accepted part consideration it transpired that the suit property was purchased in the name of his brothers. The original defendant no.3 had denied to execute the deed in favour of Kalyani.

8. The suit was filed on 18th September, 1985. It was amended twice. The last amendment was made after the suit filed by her brothers in the year 2003 being T.S. 149 of 2003 in which the brothers have claimed recovery of possession after evicting Kalyani and her husband.

9. Kalyani, the original plaintiff in the plaint has stated that she was married on 7th May, 1975 in presence of the defendant no. 3, her father as one of the witnesses. At the time of marriage her father assured the plaintiff and her husband that he would arrange a house for them at Kolkata but the construction of the house was to be supervised by the husband of the plaintiff.

10. Since the husband of the plaintiff had no accommodation at Kolkata of his own at that time the defendant no. 3 allowed separate accommodation in his house at P-105 Unique Park, Behala, Kolkata-34 where the plaintiff live with her husband in order to enable the husband of the plaintiff to supervise the house.

11. The defendant no.3 assured the plaintiff that he had purchased the suit property in the name of the plaintiff and her sister, the defendant no.4 out of love and affection and it was further represented that the plaintiff would be required to construct the building in the ½ share of the plot of land on the northern side of the suit property of her own and with her own money keeping the other ½ portion vacant for the defendant no.4 on the southern side. These two plots of land have been described as the suit property.

12. On the basis of the aforesaid representation the plaintiff sold her ornaments and major share of her husband’s landed property at Midnapore and also encashed all the Fixed Deposit of her husband and her mother in law proceeds whereof amounting of Rs.51,000/- were invested for constructing the house of the northern side of the suit property consisting of two bed rooms, one garage, unfinished staircase of the rooms, grills, safety tanks etc. The said construction was started in 1982 and while the said construction was continuing they were prevented for continuing the said construction. In or about 9th March, 1984 the defendant no.3 informed the pla