The court clarified the applicability of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, and emphasized the burden of proof in establishing a benami transaction. It also highlighted the importance of critically examining evidence and the higher standard of proof required in cases involving disputed facts such as benami transactions.

JUDGMENT :

Both these appeals arise from the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bargarh in Title Appeal No. 40/2 of 1988-89 allowing the appeal in part and thereby decreeing plaintiff’s right and title only over the Schedule-B land and confirming his possession thereon followed by the direction to the defendants to give vacant possession of the same to the plaintiff within one month with liberty to the plaintiff to proceed in accordance with law for the same, if not so delivered.

The above noted appeal under section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed by the unsuccessful defendants in the court of learned Subordinate Judge, Padmapur in Title Suit No. 130 of 1986. The trial court had decreed the suit declaring plaintiff’s right, title and interest over the Schedule-A land and directing delivery of vacant possession to be given to the plaintiff in respect of the Schedule C and D land. It may be stated here that the land described in Schedule-A of the plaint is the total land over which the plaintiff had sought for the relief of declaration of right, title and interest and the Schedule-B is a part of it over which there remains no prayer in specific. The land described in Schedule C and D which are the part of and within the Schedule-B land. With respect to the schedule C and D lands prayer was for eviction of the defendants. The trial court had decreed the suit granting the reliefa to the plaintiff as prayed for. The lower appellate court has granted the relief to the plaintiff in respect of Schedule-B land by way of declaration of his right, title, interest and also for vacant possession of the same. This has led the defendant no.1 to file this Second Appeal No. 50 of 1991. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court, the plaintiff has also filed Second Appeal No. 54 of 1991 in declining the relief in respect of Schedule A land.

2. For the sake of convenience, in order to bring in clarity and avoid confusion, the parties hereinafter have been referred to as they have been arraigned in the trial court.

3. The plaintiff’s case is that Kishorilal Agrawala, the original defendant no.1 is his maternal uncle. It is the appropriate stage to state that after death of said original defendant no.1, his legal representatives being made parties are now pursuing the appeal.

One Jagannath Agrawala, the husband of the defendant no.5 is his elder father. It is stated that the father of the plaintiff and defendant no.1 and that Jagannath were having good relationship and in view of that relationship, the father of the plaintiff namely, Changilal Agrawala had purchased the land described in Schedule-A of the plaint from one Gagan Bihari Barik of Jhungapali by registered sale deed benami in the name of defendant no.1 and Jagannath. It is further stated that the father of the plaintiff avoided to go for said purchase in his name as an insolvency proceeding was pending against him, thus remaining with the apprehension that lest the purchase if so made, the said property might pass to the hands of the creditors. The sale deed is dated 03.10.1961 which has been admitted in evidence and marked as Ext.13. It is the further case of the plaintiff that the consideration money of Rs.1500/-was entirely paid by Changilal to the vendor who had delivered possession of the suit land to Changilal and had authorized Changilal to receive the original sale deed from the registration office. Thus it is said that for all purposes, Changilal is the real owner and defendant no.1 and Jagannath are merely the name lenders without being in enjoyment of the property in any way at any point of time. The plaintiff claims that as dissension arose in his family, his father had allotted the suit land in his share and separated himself. So, he shifted to Diptipur and began to possess the suit land by constructing a shed over it in the year 1962 and carried on his business there. It is also stated that thereafter he