The central legal point established is the requirement for the Trial Court to decide the legal issues raised by the parties, including the suit's maintainability under Section 4(1) of the Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act, 1988, and the applicability of the concept of coparcener under the Dayabhaga school of law.

Laxmi Kanta Mohapatra, CJ.

1. This appeal has been filed by the defendant No. 1 in Original (Partition) Suit No. 6/2001/34/2002. The suit was decreed by the learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge (FTC), Manipur East vide judgment and decree dated 29.1.2005.

2. The respondent No. 1 had filed the suit for partition. The case of the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 is that the plaintiff and defendants 1, 2 and 3 are members of a joint hindu family and are in possession of undivided properties described in 3(three) schedules attached to the plaint which they got from common ancestor late Nourem Ibomcha Singh who died intestate on 22.2.1998. It is the case of the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 that common ancestor late Nourem Ibomcha Singh was paying income tax from the assessment year 1961-62 from out of the income earned from the property described in Schedule 'A' and 'B' of the plaint. After his death the defendant No. 1-appellant has become coparcener of the family and paying income tax in the name of their deceased father. The dispute arose regarding the management of the suit properties, distribution of monthly income from the tenants of the Thangal Bazar and Paona Bazar shop buildings, apart from income through sale of Loushal Paddy every year. Since there was dispute with regard to distribution of properties, monthly income, etc., the plaintiff filed the suit for partition claiming equal share as that of his brothers who are defendant No. 1, 2 and 3. The defendant No. 1-appellant filed the written statement along with a counter claim though the counter claim was not pressed later during pendency of the suit. The specific objection taken by the defendant No. 1 in para 10 of the written statement was that schedule 'A' property is not benami property held by his late father in his name in between 1949 and 1998 for benefit of the family. It was also the stand of the defendant No. 1-appellant that he had purchased the property in Schedule 'A' with his own money in an auction sale held on 1.8.1952. The other plea taken in the said para is that if the schedule 'A' property is covered under Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act, 1988, the suit is hit by section 4(1) of the Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act, 1988 and therefore, the suit filed by the plaintiff respondent No. 1 was not maintainable in respect of Schedule 'A' property. The other allegations made in the plaint were denied by the defendant No. 1-appellant.

3. The Trial Court framed only one issue on the basis of pleadings of the parties which is quoted below:--

"Whether these property i.e. plaint schedule 'A' property was purchased by his late father N. Ibomcha Singh and whether the said defendant No. 1 N. Brajakishore Singh is only a benamidar in respect of the said property"?

Even though in the written statement of defendant No. 1-appellant, a specific plea was taken that the suit is hit by section 4(1) of the Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act, 1988, no issue was framed by the Trial Court.

4. On behalf of the plaintiff respondent No. 1, four witnesses were examined and on behalf of the defendant No. 1-appellant, two witnesses were examined. Three witnesses were examined on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2-4 and two more witnesses were examined on behalf of the respondent No. 5. In course of the proceeding before the Trial Court, parties agreed that there is no dispute with regard to properties mentioned in Schedule 'B' and 'C' of the plaint and only dispute was with regard to the property described in Schedule 'A' of the plaint which is the property purchased in the name of the defendant No. 1-appellant benami by their deceased father. While answering the only issue the Trial Court came to the conclusion that the Schedule 'A' property is not acquired by the defendant No. 1-appellant but had been purchased by late N. Ibomcha Singh in the name of the defendant No. 1-appellant. Accordingly, the Trial Court allowed the suit for partition.

5. Shri Modhu, learned counsel appeari