I.A. Ansari, J.

1. The Appellant herein instituted Title Suit No. 03/2004, his case being, in brief, thus:

(i) The plaintiff discontinued his studies due to insufficiency of money and time inasmuch as he was the only earning member of his family and maintaining Defendant Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 6, the Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 being sisters and Defendant Nos.3 and 6 being his mother and brother respectively. The plaintiff had been maintaining, out of his small income, his mother, two sisters and one of his brothers, they all (Defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 6) being minors. In the year 1983, the plaintiff got an opportunity to purchase the suit land. In making purchase of the suit land, proforma Defendant Nos. 4 and 5, both being plaintiff's brothers, rendered financial assistance to the plaintiff. The plaintiff, in good faith, and in order to live a joint family life, got the sale deed, in respect of the said land, registered in favour of his mother, i.e. Defendant No. 3. The suit land was accordingly mutated in the name of his mother.

(ii) In the month of July, 1983, the plaintiff wanted to construct a residential house over the suit land and when he was making necessary preparations, he came to learn that his mother, (i.e., Defendant No. 3), had gifted, by way of gift deed, the suit land to the plaintiff's two sisters, namely, Defendant Nos. 1 and 2. The gift deed was registered on 24.02.2003. Having come to know about the gift deed, the plaintiff has instituted a suit seeking declaration, inter alia, as follows:

Declaration of plaintiff's right, title, interest and possession over the suit land and house standing thereon, declaration that the gift deed, in question, is illegal, void and non-operative, cancellation of the said gift deed and perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants and others, claiming under them from entering into the suit land.

2. The Defendant No. 3 filed a written statement and denied the fact that the suit land was purchased by the plaintiff, her case being that the suit land was purchased by her and that she, being the sole and absolute owner of the suit property, had voluntarily, by way of gift deed, gifted the suit land to her two daughters.

3. On a petition being filed under Order XIV, Rule 2 and Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the ground that the suit was barred under Section 4 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, (in short, 'the said Act') the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No. 1, Tinsukia, framed accordingly a preliminary issue. On hearing the learned Counsel for the parties concerned, the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No. 1, Tinsukia, passed an order, on 13.09.2004, holding to the effect, inter alia, that the suit stood barred by the provisions of the said Act and dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit, the plaintiff preferred an appeal, which gave rise to Title Appeal No. 7 of 2004. By Judgment and decree, dated 29.03.2006, passed in Title Appeal No.7 of 2004, the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Tinsukia, dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the appeal, the plaintiff has, now, come to this Court with this second appeal.

4. The substantial question of law, raised in this appeal, read:

Whether the learned Courts below are legally justified in dismissing the plaintiff's suit as barred under Section 4 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1998 by framing the preliminary issue on the face of the averments on the pleadings.

5. I have heard Mr. A.K. Goswami, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. S. Banik, learned Counsel, for the plaintiff, and Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. D. Senapati, learned Counsel, for the contesting Respondents.

6. Before coming to the merit of this appeal, it needs to be pointed that the expression, benami transaction, is defined, in Section 2(a) of the said Act, to mean, 'any transaction in which property is transferred to one person for a consideration paid or provid