- (1.) The second appeal was directed against a judgment of affirmation.
(2.) The appellants' suit for declaration and permanent injunction was dismissed by the Courts below. The second appeal was admitted by an order dated January 4, 1999. Substantial questions of law were framed by an order dated April 16, 2013 which were as follows:- (a) whether the learned Courts below substantially erred in law by holding that the suit was not maintainable in view of the provisions of Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 without applying the correct legal test; (b) whether the learned Courts below substantially erred in law by holding that the Defendant No. 3 Sourendra Nath Giri was the real owner of the suit property without applying correct legal test; (c) whether the judgment of the learned Courts below were perverse being not based on the evidence on record.
(3.) The suit was for declaration and injunction. One Haro Charan Giri was the owner of the suit property. By a registered deed of sale dated June 24, 1954 Haro Charan Giri sold the suit property in favour of Surendra Nath Giri. The appellants claimed that, Surendra Nath Giri was the son-in-law and the benamder of Niranjan Maity. On October 6, 1959 Surendra Nath Giri executed a Nadabi deed (deed of relinquishment) in favour of Niranjan Maity. On October 10, 1975 Niranjan Maity executed a registered Nirupan Patra in favour of the appellants. The appellants, according to them, were therefore the owners of the suit property. On July 11, 1984 Surendra Nath Giri executed registered sale deeds in favour of the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in respect of the suit property. According to the appellants, disputes arose between the appellants and the Respondent No. 3. Out of grudge to the appellants, the Respondent No. 3 taking advantage of the fact that the suit property stood in his name prior to the deed dated October 6, 1959, the Respondent No. 3 in collusion with the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 executed two sale deeds dated July 11, 1984. The respondents, thereafter, threatened the appellants with dispossession forcing the appellants to file the suit. The appellants claimed that they acquired title to the suit land on the basis of the deed dated October 10, 1975 and for permanent injunction and other reliefs.;