Indrajit Chatterjee, J. - (1.) This is an application under Article Constitution of India wherein the order No. 2 dated 04 -09 -2013 has been assailed before this Court as passed by the learned 2nd Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Howrah, in Title Suit No. 110 of 2013 wherein the learned Trial Court was pleased to dismiss this application as filed by the defendants/opposite parties under Order 7 Rule XI of the Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter called as the said Code).
(2.) The case of the plaintiff as made out in the plaint can be stated in brief thus: - - "That the suit property as mentioned in the schedule A of the plaint was purchased by the father of the plaintiff, that is, Jaladhar Mudi since deceased in the benam of his wife, Smt. Durga Mudi, that is the defendant No. 1 of the instant suit and the petitioner No. 1 of this application but the said property was not purchased for her own benefit and actually, it was purchased for the benefit of the entire family of Jaladhar Mudi. (And as such, it was claimed by the plaintiff that Jaladhar purchased the property in the benam of his wife, that is, Durga Mudi.) The said deed was registered on 8th February, 2000 for a valuable consideration from Asto Adhikari, son of late Balai Chandra Adhikari and Kalpani Adhikari, that is, the wife of Asto Adhikari. It was further claimed by the plaintiff/opposite party before this Court that after purchasing the said property, the father of the plaintiff allowed her wife to mutate her name with the Howrah Municipal Corporation and started residing in the suit property along with his wife, I repeat with the defendant No. 1 of the suit and his two sons, i.e. the plaintiff and the defendant No. 2 of the instant suit after making necessary repair works. It was further claimed that although in the sale deed the price of the property was shown to be two lakh thirty four thousand but the father of the plaintiff actually paid Rupees eight lakh to the vendors."
(3.) It was also the claim of the present plaintiff/opposite party that the mother of the plaintiff, that is, defendant No. 1, is the house wife by occupation and when her marriage took place the financial condition of her parental family was poor and as such, it has been claimed by the plaintiff that actually the said defendant No. 1 had no capacity to purchase the said property. It has been claimed in the plaint that economic condition of the father of the plaintiff was very good as he was the owner of M/s. Rising Engineering Works and the said factory was situated on the property of Guru Prasad Ghosh which was taken on rent by the father of the plaintiff. It has also been claimed that apart the property as mentioned above, the father of the plaintiff purchased a property on 30 -05 -1990 from one Surya Narayan Jha and Harsha Narayan Jha as per deed No. 1679 of 1995 which has been described in the schedule C of the plaint.;