JUDGMENT :

Devashis Baruah, J.

1. Heard Mr. MA Sheikh, the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. A.C. Sarma, the learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. B. Haldar for the respondents.

2. This Court vide order dated 8/8/2014 had framed the following two substantial questions of law :-

1. Whether the finding recorded in Issue No. 3 that proforma defendant No. 1 did not have right, title and interest with the possession of the suit land to sell the suit land is perverse to the evidence on record?

2. Whether the defendant No. 2 can claim any right over the suit land taking a plea that he had purchased the suit land benami in favour of proforma defendant No. 1?

3. For the purpose of answering as to whether there is a substantial question of law for adjudication of the disputes involved in the instant proceeding which shall affect the lis, it is necessary to bring on record the brief facts of the instant case.

4. The appellant herein had filed the suit seeking declaration of her right, title and interest over the Schedule-B land for a decree of khas possession in respect to the Schedule C land by evicting the defendant Nos. 1 & 2; for permanent injunction; for partition etc. The case of the appellant as plaintiff in the suit is that the appellant has purchased a plot of land specifically described in the Schedule B to the plaint from the Proforma Defendant No. 1 for a valuable consideration on the basis of a registered Deed of Sale bearing Deed No. 1902/2002 dated 5/8/2002 and thereafter delivered possession on 6/8/2002. The appellant thereupon was enjoying the said Schedule B land by getting her mutation done in respect to the said land. But on 7/1/2003 the appellant's mutation was cancelled on objection being filed by the defendant No. 2 in the suit who happens to be the father of the Proforma Defendant No. 1. Thereupon the principal defendants dispossessed the plaintiffs from a part of the said Schedule B land which is most specifically described in Schedule C on 1/9/1992 and had erected a tent. It is under this circumstances the said suit was filed seeking the reliefs as aforementioned.

5. The defendant Nos. 1 and 2 jointly filed a written statement wherein the defendants alleged that vide registered Deed of Sale bearing Deed No. 2499/2000 dated 8/11/2000 the defendant No. 2 who is the father of the Proforma Defendant No. 1 purchased the Schedule B land (hereinafter referred to as the suit land) in the name of the Proforma Defendant No. 1 for a valuable consideration of Rs. 18,000/- and consequently the said Proforma Defendant No. 1 had no right, title and interest for the purpose of executing the Deed of Sale in favour of the plaintiff/the appellant herein. It was also alleged in the said written statement that it was the Defendant No. 2 who was in possession of the suit land pursuant to the purchase vide registered Deed of Sale bearing Deed No. 2499/2000 made on 8/11/2000 and the Proforma Defendant No. 1 was never in possession of the suit land. At this stage it may be relevant herein to mention that in paragraph 5 of the written statement the defendant No. 1 & 2 have categorically stated "it is not certain whether the Proforma Defendant No. 1 has at all transferred the land with the plaintiff". Thus from the said statement one can make up that there was no specific denial as regards the execution of the Deed of Sale made by the proforma defendant No. 1 in favour of the plaintiff. None of the Proforma Defendant filed any written statement.

6. Pursuant to the exchange of pleadings, the Trial Court framed as many as 6 issues which for the sake of convenience are quoted herein below:

1. Whether the suit land was purchased by defendant No. 2 from proforma defendant No. 3 Malek Ali in the name of proforma defendant No. 1 who is the son of defendant No. 2?

2. Whether the defendant No. 2 or proforma defendant No. 1 was in possession of the suit land?

3. Whether the proforma defendant No. 1 has right, title and interest with possession of the