P.K. Chattopadhyay, J. - (1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated June 12, 1981 passed by the Learned Additional District Judge, 4th Court, Alipore in Title Appeal No. 318 of 1980 reversing those dated 14th February, 1980 passed by the Learned Munsif, 4th Court, Alipore in Title Suit No. 93 of 1970. The plaintiffs have filed the suit before the Learned Munsif, 4th court, Alipore for declaration and permanent injunction. According to the plaintiffs, suit property described in the schedule of the plaint was purchased by late Panchanan Karmakar, husband of plaintiff No. 1 and father of other plaintiffs. It has been stated by the plaintiffs that late Panchanan Karmakar purchased the suit property by a registered kobala from one, Khiroda Dasi in the Benami of Smt. Kiran Bala Dassi, the mother of said Panchanan Karmakar. According to the plaintiffs, Panchanan Karmakar out of the total consideration money paid Rs.400/ - to Khiroda Dasi, at the time of execution of the deed and the balance consideration money amounting to Rs. 800/ - was not paid to Khiroda and was retained for the purpose of maintaining Khiroda and another deed of maintenance in favour of Khiroda was executed by said Panchanan Karmakar. Plaintiffs also stated that Panchanan Karmakar maintained Khiroda till her death.
(2.) It has been mentioned in the plaint that the parents of late Panchanan Karmakar were very poor and did not possess sufficient means for their sustenance. According to the plaintiffs, Panchanan Karmakar had been working as a goldsmith and also had independent business of his own and Panchanan out of his own income acquired the suit property in the Benami of his mother Kiran Bala. Plaintiffs are the heirs of Panchanan Karmakar and the said plaintiffs claimed that as heirs of Panchanan Karmakar they have inherited the suit property. It has been stated by the plaintiffs that the registered deeds and other documents in respect of the said property were all along in the custody of Panchanan and after his death defendant No. 2 managed to capture the same by fraudulent means.
(3.) It has further been mentioned in the plaint that defendant No. 2 also managed to execute the deed of gift in her favour by exercising undue insurance and pressure upon the original defendant No. 1 Kiron Bala Dasi. The plaintiffs further contended that the said deed of gift was not binding upon the plaintiffs as the same was a fraudulent document and defendant No. 2 did riot acquire any right, title, interest and possession in the disputed property as original defendant No. 1 was only a Benamdar in respect of the suit property.;