J U D G M E N T

A litigation over an item of property which stood in the name of the mother, started in the year 1993 with the daughter filing a suit for partition is lingering even now along the corridors of this Court. It is the second time that the matter has come to this Court, now in the form of a Second Appeal and earlier, in the form of an appeal from order which was allowed by way of remand with a direction to the trail court to consider whether the appellant-1st defendant has paid the consideration for acquisition of the property in the name of his mother, whether the explanation to Section 4(3)(b) of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 is available to the the appellant and to enable the parties adduce further evidence regarding the above.

2. After remand the parties adduced further evidence.

The trial court found against the plea raised by the appellant that he had purchased the property, benami, in the name of his mother and consequently ordered partition. That was confirmed by the first appellate court in A.S. No.3 of 2010. That judgment and decree are under challenge in this Second Appeal.

3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that in dec