Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 372 (CAL)

PRATIMA GHOSH v. BINAPANI PAUL

2003-07-29

GORACHAND DE, SAMARESH BANERJEE

body2003
GORACHAND DE, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal by the defendants is directed against the judgment and decree dated 28. 2. 1981 passed by Mr. A. K. Sen, Subordinate judge, Ninth Court, Alipore, 24-Pgs. (S) in Title Suit No. 86 of 1973. ( 2 ) THE three plaintiffs instituted this suit for partition and accounts on 19th september, 1973 alleging that Dr. Asutosh Ghosh, who generally practised at rangoon and was governed by the Dayabhaga School of Hindu Law, in order to benefit of his wife, Smt. Supravabala Ghosh purchased premises No. 24, Convent Road, Calcutta (hereinafter referred to as 'the suit property' for brevity) without keeping any beneficial interest in himself. Dr. Ghosh died on 29th July, 1940 leaving behind the three plaintiffs and the defendant Nos. 2 to 4 being the daughters and Amal Kumar Ghosh (the original defendant No. 1) being the only son as his legal heirs. Dr. Asutosh Ghosh never claimed the suit premises to be his own property and at his instance, mutation of the said premises was done in the name of his said wife Supravabala Ghosh who exercised all acts of ownership and possession during and after the lifetime of Dr. Asutosh Ghosh. The said Supravabala Ghosh died in 1942 leaving behind the said plaintiffs and the defendants and a married daughter, Ira Ghosh. The said plaintiffs and defendants accordingly acquired one-seventh share each in the suit property as the married daughter Ira Ghosh being already married when the succession reopened could not inherit any property. The suit property was all along used as residential dwelling house of the parties, but due to the ill-treatment of the wife of the defendant No. 1 the defendant Nos. 2 to 4 left the suit property in 1958. The plaintiff Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were married in the year 1944, 1946 and 1951 respectively and the defendant No. 4 was married in the year 1970. The defendant No. 1 started residing in the second floor of the suit property, and the ground floor and the first floor were let out to two tenants. The defendant No. 1, on behalf of the plaintiffs, used to realize rent from the tenants, paid taxes and made necessary repairs of the suit property, but never rendered any account to the plaintiffs. He also turned down the plaintiffs' request for partition of the suit property. The defendant No. 1, on behalf of the plaintiffs, used to realize rent from the tenants, paid taxes and made necessary repairs of the suit property, but never rendered any account to the plaintiffs. He also turned down the plaintiffs' request for partition of the suit property. Accordingly the instant suit has been filed for partition and accounts. ( 3 ) DURING the pendency of the suit, the defendant No. 1 died on 2nd December, 1975 and his widow and the only daughter were made defendant Nos. 1a and ib respectively in the suit. ( 4 ) THE defendant No. 1 alone contested the suit after filing a written statement on 9th September, 1974 denying the material allegations made in the plaint. His specific defence is that Dr. Asutosh Ghosh purchased the suit land and an old building on the suit property with his own money in the benami of his wife supravabala Ghosh at a price of Rs. 25,000/- as early as on 16th November, 1935 and thereafter, he constructed the present three storeyed building after spending his own money to the extent of Rs. 60,000/ -. The wife Supravabala ghosh had no personal income or stridhan for the purchase and development of the suit property. After the death of Dr. Asutosh Ghosh on 29th July, 1940, the wife Supravabala and the only son, Amal Kumar Ghosh (defendant No. 1)inherited the suit property as the only legal heirs. Supravabala died on 26th may, 1942 long before the enactment of the Hindu Succession Act and after her death, her right developed upon the defendant No. 1 who actually enjoyed the property as his own. Supravabala never exercised her right and possession in the suit property and thus, the daughters of Dr. Asutosh Ghosh did not acquire any right, title and interest in the suit property. However, the defendant No. 1 after the death of Dr. Ghosh maintained and brought up the plaintiffs and the other defendants, and incurred all expenses of the marriage of four sisters. The defendant No. 1 also inducted tenants in the year 1953 in the suit property and realized rent from them as his own property. It is also contended that the defendant Nos. 2 to 4 left the suit property on their own will in the year 1958 and filed an application before the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta for maintenance. The defendant No. 1 also inducted tenants in the year 1953 in the suit property and realized rent from them as his own property. It is also contended that the defendant Nos. 2 to 4 left the suit property on their own will in the year 1958 and filed an application before the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta for maintenance. In terms of the order passed by the Hon'ble Court, the defendant no. l started paying Rs. 90/- per month to each of the said defendants. It is also alleged that since 1951, none of the plaintiffs resided in the suit property and the defendant No. 1 has been possessing the same as the sole owner after realizing rent from the tenants. It is also contended that the plaintiffs never asked for partition of the suit property and that they have no locus standi to institute this suit for which prayer was made for dismissal of the suit. ( 5 ) AFTER being substituted as defendant Nos. 1a and 1b, another written statement was filed by them on 15th March, 1979 virtually reiterating the case made out in the original written statement. ( 6 ) SINCE the plaint was allowed to be amended, an additional written statement was filed by the defendant Nos. 1a and 1b on 2. 7. 1980 alleging that the said defendants 1a and 1b had been realizing rent from the tenants as landlord and owner before appointment of the Receiver in respect of the suit property. ( 7 ) ON the basis of the respective pleadings, the following issues were settled on 3. 7. 1974:"1) Is the suit maintainable? 2) Are the plaintiffs entitled to get a decree for partition of the suit property? 3) To what other reliefs, if any, are the plaintiffs entitled?"five witnesses were examined on behalf of the plaintiffs and two witnesses were examined on behalf of the defendants. Several documents were also produced on behalf of the parties and those were marked as exhibits. The Id. Subordinate Judge after taking into consideration the evidence adduced by the parties - both documentary and oral-decided all the three issues in favour of the plaintiffs and decreed the suit in the preliminary form, after coming to a conclusion that the plaintiffs are entitled to get partition of the suit property to the extent of their three-seventh shares. The Id. Subordinate Judge after taking into consideration the evidence adduced by the parties - both documentary and oral-decided all the three issues in favour of the plaintiffs and decreed the suit in the preliminary form, after coming to a conclusion that the plaintiffs are entitled to get partition of the suit property to the extent of their three-seventh shares. Being aggrieved'by and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree, the instant appeal was presented on 24th April, 1981. ( 8 ) AFTER the presentation of this appeal, by an order dated 10. 6. 1981, the appellant No. 2, Putul Ghosh (defendant No. 1b) who was appointed Receiver by the Trial Court was directed to continue to be the Receiver of the suit property pending the disposal of the appeal. By the said order further proceeding of the title Suit was stayed pending disposal of the hearing of this appeal. During the pendency of this appeal an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed by the appellants and by an order dated 22. 4. 98 the Court allowed the prayer and the record was sent to the Trial Court for taking additional evidence. The lower Court record was received back with the additional evidence on 10. 2. 1999. Respondent No. 2, Debjani Pal died on 15th february, 2000 and her only daughter Smt. Annapurna Ghosh were brought on record by an order dated 29. 3. 2000. ( 9 ) MR. Sudhis Dasgupta with Mr. S. S. Roy and Mr. Jyotirmoy Adhikary appeared for the appellants in course of hearing of this appeal. Mr. S. P. Roychowdhury with Mr. Debasish Roy and Soumya Roy appeared for the other respondents while Mr. Goutam Chakraborty appeared for the respondent No. 3. ( 10 ) IT is admitted by the Id. counsels that the fate of this appeal is dependent on the answer to the question as to whether the purchase of premises No. 24, convent Road, Calcutta by Dr. Asutosh Ghosh in the name of his wife Smt. Supravabala Ghosh in 1935 and the construction of the three storeyed building thereon by Dr. Asutosh Ghosh were benami or he intended to confer beneficial interest of the property on his wife. Asutosh Ghosh in the name of his wife Smt. Supravabala Ghosh in 1935 and the construction of the three storeyed building thereon by Dr. Asutosh Ghosh were benami or he intended to confer beneficial interest of the property on his wife. It is to be mentioned that the Trial Court while deciding the three issues indicated in paragraph 7 hereinabove came to the conclusion that the suit property was purchased by Dr. Ghosh for the benefit of his wife for which it became her stridhan property and after her death, it would be heritable by six daughters and one son. Accordingly, the Trial Court decreed the suit after declaring that the three plaintiffs had their title to the extent of 3/7th share in the suit property. It is needless to mention that the Id. counsels appearing on behalf of the present appellants challenged the said finding of the Trial Court and citing the evidence on record along with the additional evidence collected in course of pendency of this appeal and the law on the point contended that the wife Supravabala Ghosh was only a benamder of her husband Dr. Asutosh Ghosh and as such, the findings of the Trial Court are liable to be set aside, the appeal is to be allowed and the suit is liable to be dismissed. On the other hand, the Id. counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents supported the findings of the Trial Court and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. ( 11 ) BEFORE entering into the factual and legal aspects agitated by the Id. counsels, we deem it proper to point out the following facts which are proved in this case:- (I) Dr. Asutosh Ghosh, a medical practitioner, who generally practised at rengoon was governed by the Dayabhaga School of Hindu Law and he died on 29. 7. 1940 leaving behind the widow Smt. Supravabala Ghosh, one son Amal ghosh (defendant No. 1) and seven daughters Ira, Binapani (plaintiff No. 1), debjani (plaintiff No. 2), Priti (plaintiff No. 3), Minati (defendant No. 2), Dipa (defendant No. 3) and Sipra (defendant No. 4 ). (ii) Supravabala Ghosh died on 26. 5. 1942. (iii) The first daughter Ira Ghosh was married before the death of supravabala Ghosh whereas Binapani, Debjani, Priti and Sipra were married respectively in the years 1944, 1946, 1951 and 1970. (ii) Supravabala Ghosh died on 26. 5. 1942. (iii) The first daughter Ira Ghosh was married before the death of supravabala Ghosh whereas Binapani, Debjani, Priti and Sipra were married respectively in the years 1944, 1946, 1951 and 1970. (iv) Amal Ghosh (defendant No. l) died in December 1975 leaving behind his widow Pratima Ghosh (defendant No. 1a) and only daughter Putul Ghosh (defendant No. 1b ). (v) On 16. 11. 1935, the land with structure on premises No. 24, Convent road, Calcutta was purchased on the basis of a registered deed of sale in the name of Smt. Supravabala Ghosh (Ext. B) by Dr. Asutosh Ghosh. (vi) A three-storeyed building was constructed on the said premises No. 24, convent Road, Calcutta by 1938 i. e. long before the death of Dr. Asutosh Ghosh. (vii) After the death of Supravabala Ghosh, her son and daughters excepting the married daughter Ira Ghosh started residing at 24, Convent Road, Calcutta and the marriage of Binapani, Debjani and Priti had taken place in the said premises. (viii) The unmarried sisters Minati and Dipa left the premises No. 24, convent Road, Calcutta in May 1958 and filed Suit No. 1864 of 1964 in the ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction of the High Court at Calcutta against their only brother Amal Ghosh praying for maintenance and marriage expenditure since all the properties left by Asutosh Ghosh were in possession of their elder brother Amal Ghosh and got interim order of maintenance which was being paid to them by Amal Ghosh and after his death, by his widow Pratima Ghosh (defendant No. 1a) and his only daughter Putul Ghosh (defendant No. 1b ). ( 12 ) FROM the evidence of the plaintiff No. 1, Binapani Pal (PW 3) it is clarified that she was born in 1928 and was married in the year 1944 that is at the age of 16 years. She also clarified that the original defendant No. 1 Amal Ghosh was senior to her by 5 years. So at the time of the purchase of the suit property in 1935 Amal was aged about 12 years and the plaintiff No. l Binapani (PW 3)was aged only 7 years. It is clarified in the evidence that at the time of purchase of the suit property, there existed an one-storeyed building and subsequently after demolishing the building, a new three storeyed building was constructed. It is clarified in the evidence that at the time of purchase of the suit property, there existed an one-storeyed building and subsequently after demolishing the building, a new three storeyed building was constructed. Though the plaintiffs tried to prove that Supravabala contributed some amount of money for the purchase of the property or for the development of the property, but no reliable evidence has been adduced. On the other hand, from the oral and documentary evidence it is proved beyond any reasonable doubt that the suit property was purchased by Dr. Asutosh Ghosh by his own money and he also spent the entire amount for the development of the property including construction by the PW 4 Chandicharan Ghosh, a relation of Dr. Asutosh Ghosh that Asubabu came to the suit premises during the Grihaprabesh ceremony in 1938. So the evidence on record are sufficient to prove that the suit property was purchased and developed by Dr. Asutosh Ghosh by his own money and he purchased the property in the benami of his wife. ( 13 ) IN order to prove their case, the plaintiffs are required to prove that Dr. Asutosh Ghosh purchased the suit property for the benefit of his wife. The trial Court on this score presumed that having regard to the law in 1935 as regards the Dayabhaga School of Hindu Law, it was probable that the acquisition of the suit property was for the benefit of the wife and daughters, Dr. Ghosh intended not to leave the wife and daughters under the mercy of the only son. But we must say that this presumption is not in consonance with the evidence on record. The intention of Dr. Ghosh as regards the suit property is to be gathered from his conduct from the date of acquisition of the suit property till his death in 1940. ( 14 ) THE evidence taken during the trial and also during the pendency of the appeal are sufficient to indicate that Dr. Asutosh Ghosh wanted to purchase a property in the name of his wife Supravabala ignoring the objections raised by his brother that it would create complications in future. It is also on record that he purchased the property in the name of his wife Supravabala, after engaging atul Ghosh as the constituted attorney of Supravabala since Dr. Asutosh Ghosh was residing far away from Calcutta. It is also on record that he purchased the property in the name of his wife Supravabala, after engaging atul Ghosh as the constituted attorney of Supravabala since Dr. Asutosh Ghosh was residing far away from Calcutta. It was argued on behalf of the respondents that in the Power of Attorney executed by Supravabala she was not shown as the wife of Dr. Ghosh intentionally for giving a colour of absolute ownership in favour of Supravabala. But it is to be noted that Dr. Ghosh signed the Power of attorney as a witness, and in the sale deed in respect of the suit property. Supravabala was described as the wife of Dr. Asutosh Ghosh. So this description of Supravabala Ghosh in the Power of Attorney is not sufficient to indicate that dr. Asutosh Ghosh had the intention to acquire the property for the benefit of the wife. On the other hand, the entire transaction including the objections of atul Ghosh is sufficient to indicate that it was a benami transaction in the name of the wife. ( 15 ) THE Id. counsels for the respondents also tried to argue that as Dr. Asutosh ghosh already purchased two premises being premises Nos. 73a and 73b of the Lower Circular Road in his own name, he thought it fit to purchase another property for the benefits of his wife and daughters without leaving them under the mercy of the only son, Amal. It is already indicated above that in 1935, the plaintiff No. 1 was aged about 7 years and her sisters were also junior to her. There is no evideace to show or indicate that there was no chance of birth of any other son or daughter in the wedlock of Dr. Asutosh Ghosh and Supravabala ghosh in or after 1935. There is also no indication that Dr. Asutosh Ghosh was anxious about his own health and conceived that he could not survive long for which he thought it fit to purchase a separate property for the benefit of his wife. On the other hand, the intention of Dr. Ghosh is to be ascertained from the prevailing circumstances. The evidence on record is sufficient to indicate that Dr. Asutosh Ghosh was anxious about his own health and conceived that he could not survive long for which he thought it fit to purchase a separate property for the benefit of his wife. On the other hand, the intention of Dr. Ghosh is to be ascertained from the prevailing circumstances. The evidence on record is sufficient to indicate that Dr. Ghosh was a rich man having a good medical practice at Rengoon and as such, following the practice of acquisition of property at the relevant time he opted to purchase a property in the benami of his wife. Such benami transaction was very much invogue during the relevant period and all such transactions were made for the benefit of the person by whose money the property was acquired. In fact, there is nothing on record to show or indicate that Dr. Ghosh had any intention not to treat the property as a property in the benami of his wife and there is no evidence to show that Dr. Ghosh had any intention to acquire the property for the benefit of his wife. ( 16 ) THE evidence on record further indicates that after the death of Dr. Ghosh, Supravabala never claimed the property as her own property. On the other hand, she as the guardian of the only son took the succession certificate in respect of the movable properties left by her husband. Even after the death of Supravabala in 1942, no attempt was made by the daughters to get the suit property partitioned and after a long lapse of 30 years of the death of supravabala, they filed the instant suit in the year 1973. ( 17 ) THE evidence on record is sufficient to indicate that the eldest brother, amal took all cares for the upbringing of the sisters and spent sufficient amount for the marriage of few of the sisters. The plaintiff Nos. 1 to 3 left the suit property after their marriage and the defendant Nos. 2 to 4 left the suit property in 1953. It is clear from the evidence on record that the differences and dispute between the brother and the sisters started in 1958 when the defendant Nos. 2 to 4 left the suit property. At that time also the sisters did not claim their right as co-sharer of the suit property. 2 to 4 left the suit property in 1953. It is clear from the evidence on record that the differences and dispute between the brother and the sisters started in 1958 when the defendant Nos. 2 to 4 left the suit property. At that time also the sisters did not claim their right as co-sharer of the suit property. The unmarried sisters opted to pray for their maintenance from the brother Amal. It is already stated above that in the said suit filed before the Original Side of this Court, an order was passed on the basis of which the unmarried sisters have been getting their respective amounts towards maintenance. Whether they are entitled to their marriage expenditure or not is also under consideration in that suit. The evidence on record is sufficient to indicate that before 1973 no attempt was made by the sisters to get their respective shares in the suit property after claiming co-sharer's interest therein. ( 18 ) THE Id. counsel for the sisters argued that the problems started when the sisters started claiming interest in the suit property. It appears from the record that Amal Kumar Ghosh inducted tenants in the suit premises and he alone used to collect rent. But the sisters claimed share of the rents collected from the tenants and took steps accordingly prohibiting the tenants to pay entire rent to their brother. Since the document of title in respect of the suit property was in the name of Supravabala, the Corporation of Calcutta included the name of son and daughters of Supravabala in their record. So the argument of the Id. counsels for the daughters that mutation in the name of the daughters and no attempt on the part of the Amal Ghosh to take steps for exclusion of the names of the sisters are sufficient to indicate that the daughters were also the co-sharers in respect of the suit property. In this connexion, we deem it proper to refer to the cross-examination part of the defendant No. 1b Putul Ghosh (DW1) in which she claimed that her father gave objection in the mutation and in spite of that, the same was mutated in the name of the plaintiffs and the defendant. In this connexion, we deem it proper to refer to the cross-examination part of the defendant No. 1b Putul Ghosh (DW1) in which she claimed that her father gave objection in the mutation and in spite of that, the same was mutated in the name of the plaintiffs and the defendant. She also claimed that one of the husbands of the daughter of supravabala, working in the Corporation of Calcutta, managed to incorporate the name of the daughters in the Corporation records. It is also stated that since the mutation alone cannot decide the title in the suit property, no further attempt was made to correct the Corporation record. The argument on behalf of the sisters on the other hand, is that since the property was purchased for the benefit of Supravabala she exercised her title in respect of the suit property as the owner and after her death all her heirs were brought on record of the corporation of Calcutta. But there is nothing in the evidence to show or indicate that Supravabala ever claimed the suit property as her own property or she took any steps as owner in respect of the suit property. ( 19 ) SO after a careful scrutiny of the evidence on record, we come to a conclusion that the plaintiffs have failed to prove their title in the suit property. In this connexion, it is also to be noted that the law in 1940, when Dr. Asutosh ghosh died, was that when a Hindu male governed by the Dayabhaga School of Hindu Law died intestate his properties would devolve upon his male heir and widow -the right of son being absolute while that of the widow was limited to her life and that the daughters did not inherit the properties. It is already discussed above that Dr. Ghosh was the real owner of the suit property and as such, the daughters did not inherit any title in the suit property, and the son alone became the owner of all the properties left by Dr. Asutosh Ghosh. It is also to be noted that the husband purchased the property in the name of his wife unexplained by other proved or admitted facts is to be regarded as benami transaction by which the beneficial interest in the property is in the husband although the ostensible owner was the wife. Asutosh Ghosh. It is also to be noted that the husband purchased the property in the name of his wife unexplained by other proved or admitted facts is to be regarded as benami transaction by which the beneficial interest in the property is in the husband although the ostensible owner was the wife. The Privy Council in Sura Lakshmi chetty vs. Kothantarama Pillai, reported in 29 CWN 1013, discussed this legal aspect and settled the law on this point. ( 20 ) IN India the English Rule of Advancement was not adopted and accordingly, there was no presumption of advancement as in England. Purchase of property in the name of wife or child very often can be made without slitest intention of vesting in the donee any beneficial interest in the property purchased. Once it is proved that the consideration has been provided by the husband, it remains his property, there being no presumption of advancement. In Bhubanmohini Dasi and Ors. vs. A. Kumudbala Dasi and Ors. , 28 CWN 131, the Division Bench of this Court considered such a situation and took the view that in such a fact situation it is to be proved by a person in whose name deed of purchase stands to show by proper and cogent evidence that the consideration was provided for her benefit. A Division Bench of the Madras High Court in A. Rangaswami Pillai vs. Subramania Pillai and Ors. , AIR 1975 Madras 141, took the view that the fact to be proved being a positive issue that the person intended to give the consideration for the benefit of the transferee, the issue cannot be put in a negative form so as to make the person who provided the consideration to show that he did not intend to provide such consideration for the benefit of the transferee. In Musammat Bilas Kunwar vs. Desraj Remjit Singh and Ors. , 19 cwn 1207, the Privy Council also viewed that the onus is upon the plaintiff to show that the property in suit was purchased by the husband for the benefit of his wife and in the absence of any evidence of any intention to give the property to her as a provision for her or otherwise beyond the bare fact of registration in her name the purchase is to be regarded as 'benami Transaction' and the beneficial interest remains in the husband. In a Division Bench judgment of patna High Court in Sahadeo Karan Singh vs. Usman Ali Khan and Ors. , AIR 1939 Patna 462, the Chief Justice Harris and Chatterjee, J following four decisions of Privy Council laid down the following propositions:-"there being no presumption of advancement in India as in England, if a father purchases a property in the name of his son, the son is not the beneficial owner but he holds it in trust for the father. There is resulting trust in favour of the person who provides the consideration. Onus is upon the son to establish that father intended to make such a gift. Father obtaining mutation in the name of the son and granting receipts in the name of the son, does not prove gift by father to son. It is a Benami Transaction. " ( 21 ) THE evidence on record as discussed hereinabove and also keeping in view the surrounding circumstances and the subsequent conduct of the parties, the only conclusion can reasonably be arrived at is that the particular transaction was a benami transaction. ( 22 ) THE Apex Court also reiterated the same principle by stating that the doctrine of advancement is not applicable in India, that benami transaction does not vest any title in the benamdar but vests in the real owner and that the real owner can deal with the property without reference to the benamdar and that if the wife or the son of the person furnishing the consideration claimed the property, it is on them to establish such a gift (Controller of Estate Duty, lucknow vs. Aloke Mitra, AIR 1981 SC 102 ). ( 23 ) ANOTHER Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in P. Narayan Menon vs. P. Bhageerathi Amma, AIR 1985 Kerala 14, decided that since the law of advancement is not in vogue in India, once it is proved that the consideration money was provided by the husband to purchase the property in the name of wife, in the absence of any declaration of Trust, there is resulting Trust in favour of the husband who had the beneficial ownership. To prove the contrary, the wife has to prove with cogent evidence that the transaction was intended as a gift by the husband to her. To prove the contrary, the wife has to prove with cogent evidence that the transaction was intended as a gift by the husband to her. In the present case it is already discussed above that excepting the oral statement of PW3, Binapani Pal (plaintiff No. 1) there is no other evidence to show that the property in suit was purchased by Dr. Asutosh ghosh for the benefit of his wife Supravabala. It is pertinent to mention that the said PW 3 was aged only about 7 years at the time of purchase of the property and subsequently she was married at the age of 16 ye'ars after the death of Supravabala. So relying on the sole evidence of the PW 3, it is not at all possible to come to a conclusion that the suit property was purchased by Dr. Asutosh Ghosh for the benefit of Supravabala. ( 24 ) ATTEMPT was made to show that the money for construction of the building on the suit land was partly supplied by Supravabala. The PW 4 Chandicharan ghosh also tried to say that he also provided certain amount to Supravabala for the purpose. But it is interesting to note that the suit building was completed by 1939 and the PW 4 joined the service at a pay of Rs. 60/- per month in 1940, that is long after the completion of the building. So it is difficult to believe that any amount was paid either by Supravabala or by any other person for the construction of the house. On the other hand, the evidence on record is sufficient to indicate that Dr. Ghosh not only purchased the suit property but the construction of the three storeyed building on the land was completed by the fund supplied by Dr. Asutosh Ghosh alone. ( 25 ) AS regards the mutation of the names of the plaintiffs and the defendants as joint owners in the records of Calcutta Corporation, it is to be mentioned that such mutation neither creates nor extinguishes title to the property nor it has any presumptive value on title-such entries are relevant only for the purpose of collecting revenue [balwant Singh and Ors. vs. Daulat Singh and Ors. , 1997 (7) SCC 137 ]. vs. Daulat Singh and Ors. , 1997 (7) SCC 137 ]. Earlier to this decision, the Apex Court in Sankalchan jaychandbhai Patel vs. Vithalbhai Jaychandbhai Patel, 1996 (6) SCC 433 , also held that mutation entries are only to enable the State to collect revenues from the persons in possession and enjoyment of the property and the right, title and interest as to property should be established de hors such entries. It was also viewed that mutation entires do not create any title or interest in the property. In Rajendra Kumar Thakkar and Anr. vs. Raniganj Municipality and ors. , 1999 (2) CHN 99 , the Calcutta High Court also laid down that the municipal authorities have no right under the statute to decide the question of title. ( 26 ) SO the entries in the Corporation record do not create any title in favour of the daughters of Dr. Asutosh Ghosh. On the other hand, the possession of all the relevant documents in custody of the son alone is sufficient to indicate that the son was exercising his act of possession as the sole owner of the property all along immediately after the death of his father. ( 27 ) THE Id. counsel for the respondents placing reliance on a decision of the apex Court in Kanakarathanammal vs. Loganatha Mudaliar and Anr. , AIR 1965 sc 271 , tried to argue that mere management of the suit property by the son for a long period cannot extinguish the title of Supravabala in the suit property. But the facts discussed in the above cited decision are completely different from the facts of the present case. In the present case the mother was alive only for two years after the death of the father during which she acted as a guardian of the minor son who was aged about 17 years at the time of the death of Dr. Asutosh Ghosh. It is also discussed that she never exercised any act of possession as owner in respect of the suit property. On the other hand, following the law prevailing at that point of time, she considered that the son was the owner of the suit property. There is nothing in the record to show that Supravabala ever claimed the suit property as her own property or that it was given to her by her husband for her benefit. On the other hand, following the law prevailing at that point of time, she considered that the son was the owner of the suit property. There is nothing in the record to show that Supravabala ever claimed the suit property as her own property or that it was given to her by her husband for her benefit. So the principle laid down in the above cited decision of the Apex Court is not applicable in the present case. ( 28 ) REFERRING to a Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in AIR 1940 Calcutta 356 (K. K. Das, Receiver and Ors. vs. Amina Khatoon Bibi and Anr.)the Id. counsel for the respondents tried to argue that since Dr. Asutosh Ghosh constructed the three storeyed building on the land of his wife Supravabala it is to be presumed that he purposely constructed the house for the benefit of the wife. But it is already discussed above that the land stood in the name of the wife and Dr. Asutosh Ghosh constructed his own house on the land purchased by his own money. So the principle enunciated in this decision is also not applicable in the present case. ( 29 ) SO after a due consideration of the facts of the case and the law that was prevailing at the relevant point of time, we come to a conclusion that the plaintiffs have failed to prove their case as made out in the plaint and as such, the plaintiffs are not entitled to get a decree for partition of the suit property. Since the plaintiffs have no title in the suit property, the suit for partition is also not maintainable. Both the issue Nos. 1 and 2 are accordingly decided in the negative. ( 30 ) AS regards the other reliefs, it is to be stated that as there are two unmarried sisters who were brought up by their only brother and that the said brother having inherited all the properties left by the father was bearing all the expenditures of the sisters all along, it is expected that the defendant nos. 1a and 1b being the heirs of the said brother should take appropriate steps for the unmarried sisters for their existence. Another Civil Suit being pending between the sisters and the heirs of the brother, we deem it proper not to make any comment on it any further. 1a and 1b being the heirs of the said brother should take appropriate steps for the unmarried sisters for their existence. Another Civil Suit being pending between the sisters and the heirs of the brother, we deem it proper not to make any comment on it any further. Since the present suit is going to be dismissed, we feel that no cost of the suit or of the appeal should be awarded against the sisters in view of the circumstances. All the three issues are accordingly decided in favour of the defendant Nos. 1a and 1b. ( 31 ) THE suit is accordingly liable to be dismissed and consequently, this appeal is liable to be allowed. Memo of the appeal is sufficiently stamped. It is that the appeal be and the same is allowed on contest. The judgment and decree of the Trial Court are hereby set aside and the suit is dismissed on contest without cost. The parties do bear their own cost of this appeal. Samaresh Banerjea, J. : I agree. Appeal allowed. Later: urgent certified xerox copy of this judgment and order, if applied for, shall be given to the parties expeditiously.