JUDGMENT : A.K. Parichha, J. - This is an appeal by Defendant No. 1 challenging the Judgment and decree of Learned Additional Sub-ordinate Judge, Balasore, passed in O.S. No. 101 of 1982-1 decreeing the suit for partition and allotting half share to the Plaintiff in the suit property mentioned in Schedule 'Kha' of the plaint. 2. Respondent no-1, Hasina Akhtar filed the above noted suit against the Appellant and her minor son Md. Annisuddin (Respondent No.2) praying for a declaration that she is entitled to half share in the schedule 'Kha' of the suit property, partition of the same and delivery of possession of her share through Civil Court Commissioner. Her case in essence was that Altafuddin ' Aftapuddin of village Kasba had two daughters and a son namely-Roshan Akhtar, Hasinna Akhtar (Plaintiff) and Md. Abasuddin. Since Aftapuddin and his wife died when their children were of tender age, the children were taken to the house of maternal uncle at village-Mirjapur in the district of Medinapur and were brought up there by the maternal uncle. Md. Abasuddin died leaving behind a daughter. Roshan Akhtar was given in marriage by her maternal uncle to a man of village-Dinajpur. But this first husband of Roshan died about six months after her marriage. Thereafter, Roshan was married to Abdul Salam Mohamed Sahauddin of Balasore (for short, 'Sahauddin' ). Plaintiff in the meantime was married to Md. Sahidulla, who is P.W.4. The specific case of the Plaintiff was that Roshan out of her own fund purchased the suit property through two registered sale deeds, took over possession of those lands and got those lands mutated in her name in revenue records and also paid rent to the then Zamindar and after abolition of Zamindari paid the rent to the State Government. Roshan died on 25.08.1972 issue less. Since the parties are governed by Muslim Sunni Law, the Plaintiff as the uterine sister and Sahauddin as the husband inherited the suit property having equal share in the same and the Plaintiff possessed her share of the suit lands through her husband and son for some time. Sahauddin married Defendant No. 1 after the death of Roshan and he was blessed with a son, who is Respondent No. 2. After death of Sahauddin, Defendant No. 1 being instigated by some of her relatives created trouble in the possession of the Plaintiff over the suit land. Sahauddin married Defendant No. 1 after the death of Roshan and he was blessed with a son, who is Respondent No. 2. After death of Sahauddin, Defendant No. 1 being instigated by some of her relatives created trouble in the possession of the Plaintiff over the suit land. The Plaintiff requested Defendant No. 1 for partition of the suit property and give her share in the same, but Defendant No. 1 refused to effect partition. Therefore, the Plaintiff filed the aforementioned suit for partition and allotment of her share. 3. Defendant No. 1 refuted the case of the Plaintiff in her written statement and pleaded inter alia that the Plaintiff is neither the sister of Roshan nor she is related to her in any manner. She further pleaded that the suit properties were actually purchased by her husband-Sahauddin from his own funds in the name of Roshan by way of benami transaction and Sahauddin was the real owner in possession of the suit properties. She accordingly, denied the claim of the Plaintiff for partition of the suit lands and allotment of share in the same. Defendant No. 2 being minor was represented by a guardian appointed by the Court. The said guardian filed a separate written statement reiterating the plea of Defendant no.1.- Considering the plea of the parties, Learned Trial Court framed the flowing 8 issues: (1) Is there any cause of action? (2) Is the suit maintainable? (3) Is the Plaintiff sister of the deceased Roshan Akhtar and daughter, of Aftabuddin ? (4) Was the disputed property purchased by A.S. Md. Sahauddin in the name of his wife? (5) Is the suit barred by limitation? (6) Is the suit property valued and whether the Court fee paid is adequate? (7) Is the Plaintiff entitled to bring a simple suit for partition? (8) To what relief, if any is the Plaintiff entitled? In support of her case, Plaintiff examined four witnesses including herself as P.W. 1 and also produced documents which were marked as Exts. 1 to 4. Defendant No. 1 examined eight witnesses, she herself being D.W.8. She also exhibited documents Exts. (8) To what relief, if any is the Plaintiff entitled? In support of her case, Plaintiff examined four witnesses including herself as P.W. 1 and also produced documents which were marked as Exts. 1 to 4. Defendant No. 1 examined eight witnesses, she herself being D.W.8. She also exhibited documents Exts. A to L. On consideration of these evidences Learned Trial Court came to hold that the Plaintiff is the sister of Roshan Akhtar, that Roshan Akhtar purchased the suit properties from her own funds and was the owner of the same, that being the sister of Roshan, the Plaintiff is entitled to half share in the suit properties. Learned Trial Court also held that the suit for partition simplicitor is maintainable, that there was cause of action for filing the suit, that the suit is not barred by limitation, that the suit has been adequately valued. With these findings, Learned Trial Court decreed the suit for partition on contest. The said Judgment and decree is under challenge in this appeal. 4. During pendency of the appeal Respondent No. 1-Hassina Akhtar died and her legal heirs Respondent Nos. 1/a to 1/f were substituted. The first appeal was heard and disposed of by Judgment dated 9.2.1996. Learned single Judge confirmed the Judgment and decree of the Learned Trial Court and dismissed the appeal. The Appellant preferred AHO No. 36 of 1996. In that AHO, the Judgment of the first appeal dated 9.2.1996 was set aside and the appeal was remitted back to this Court for fresh disposal and in consequence the appeal was reheard. 5. Mr. S.P. Mishra, Learned Counsel for the Appellant basically challenged the finding on issue Nos. 3 and 4. According to him, Learned Trial Court could not properly appreciate the evidence adduced by the parties and also committed-some error of record. He pointed out that the Defendant -Appellant never admitted P.Ws. 2 and 3 as relatives of Roshan Akhtar and therefore, it was improper on the part of the Learned Trial Court to rely on the evidence of those witnesses with an observation that they are admittedly relatives of Aftapuddin. He pointed out that the Defendant -Appellant never admitted P.Ws. 2 and 3 as relatives of Roshan Akhtar and therefore, it was improper on the part of the Learned Trial Court to rely on the evidence of those witnesses with an observation that they are admittedly relatives of Aftapuddin. He also pointed out that in Ext.3, the address of the Plaintiff has been shown to be in the district of Medinapur in West Bengal; whereas the birth place of Roshan is admittedly at village-Kasba in Balasore district and as such the entry in Ext.3 could not have been accepted as an evidence in support of the plea that the Plaintiff and Roshan Akhtar were the daughters of the same father. On issue No. 4 Mr. Mishra stated that there were sufficient oral and documentary evidence to show that Sahauddin had wood and rice business and had sufficient income and there was admission of the Plaintiff that Sahauddin purchased the suit land by way of Benami transaction, whereas there was no evidence to show that Roshan Akhtar had any independent income or asset and so it was unreasonable on the part of the Learned Trial Court to hold that the suit lands were purchased by Roshan Akhtar out of her own funds. Mr. Mishra, specifically argued that a muslim widow does not get Dower money as such money is paid only in case of divorce and as such Roshan Akhtar had no occasion of getting any dower money from her first husband. 6. Mr. P. Kar and Mr. Md. Irshad, Learned Counsels for the Respondents supported the impugned Judgment and argued that the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 4 were not discredited in cross examination and their statements were supported by documentary evidence and admission of some of the D.Ws and therefore, Learned Trial Court was justified in holding that the evidence and conduct of the parties clearly establish that Roshan Akhtar and the Plaintiff-Hassina Akhtar were sisters. 1 to 4 were not discredited in cross examination and their statements were supported by documentary evidence and admission of some of the D.Ws and therefore, Learned Trial Court was justified in holding that the evidence and conduct of the parties clearly establish that Roshan Akhtar and the Plaintiff-Hassina Akhtar were sisters. Learned Counsels also pointed out that the registered sale deeds, the mutation and settlement records, the rent receipts of the suit lands stand in the name of Roshan Akhtar and therefore, presumption would be that it was purchased by Roshan Akhtar from her own funds and since the Defendants could not produce any specific evidence to show that Sahauddin paid the consideration money and purchased the suit lands as a benami transaction, Learned Trial Court was legally justified in concluding that the suit lands were purchased by late Roshan Akhtar from her own funds. 7. In view of the submission of Learned Counsel for the Appellant that the Learned Trial Court did not consider the evidence on record properly and committed error of record, it is necessary to re-scan the evidence produced by the parties. P.W.1 was Plaintiff-Hasinna Akhtar. She stated that she herself, Roshan Akhatar and Md. Abasuddin were the daughters and son of late Aftapuddin ' Altapuddin. She stated that her father died when she, Roshan and Abasuddin were minors and therefore, their maternal uncle took them to his house at Mirzapur in Medinapur district where they were brought up and in course of time Roshan Akhtar was married to one Md. Nasiruddin, who was a lawyer in Dinajpur, but the said Nasiruddin died about six months after such marriage, where after Roshan came and stayed in the house of their uncle at Mirzapur and was later on re-married to Sahauddin, who was the son of the younger brother of her father. She stated that while married to Sahauddin, Roshan purchased the suit properties out of her own funds. She denied that the suit properties were purchased by Sahauddin and that he actually paid the consideration money and was the owner of the lands. P.W.2 claimed that he is a cousin of late Aftapuddin and stated that both Plaintiff and Roshan Akhtar were daughters of the said Aftapuddin. This witness also stated that Roshan was married, but her first husband died whereafter she remarried Sahauddin. P.W.2 claimed that he is a cousin of late Aftapuddin and stated that both Plaintiff and Roshan Akhtar were daughters of the said Aftapuddin. This witness also stated that Roshan was married, but her first husband died whereafter she remarried Sahauddin. According to this witness, the suit properties were purchased by Roshan Akhtar. P.W.3 claimed that Aftapuddin was her grand father, she being the daughter of Sk. Abasuddin, who was the brother of Roshan and Hassina. She clearly stated that Roshan and Hassina were sisters and were the daughters of Aftapuddin. She also stated that Roshan was married to a man of Dinajpur, but that first husband died whereafter she remarried. Sahabuddin. According to this witness, Roshan Akhtar purchased the landed property with the money, which she had brought from her first husband's house. P.W.4 is the husband of the Plaintiff. He stated that Md. Aftapuddin ' Altapuddin had one son Abasuddin and two daughters Roshan Akhtar and Hassina Akhtar and that P.W.3 is the daughter of that Abasuddin. He stated that after death of her first husband, who was an advocate, Roshan remarried Sahabuddin and she purchased the suit properties out of her own funds. Learned Counsel for the Appellant alleged that P. Ws. 2 to 4 are not the relatives of the deceased Aftapuddin and therefore, they are not competent to speak about the relationship between the Roshan Akhtar and the Plaintiff. It is true that in cross-examination a suggestion was given to P.Ws. 2 and 3 that they are not the relatives of late Aftapuddin, but that suggestion was stoutly denied by these witnesses. There is no denial that P.W.4 is the husband of the Plaintiff. Both P.Ws.1 and 4 have stated that Abasuddin died leaving one daughter and that P.W.3 is that daughter. As the daughter of Abasuddin P.W.3 is clearly a family member/relative and is a competent witness. P.W.2 said that he is cousin of Aftapuddin as Aftapuddin was the son of his father's brother. This claim was not discredited in cross-examination. There was also no evidence from the side of the Defendants to disprove the claim of P.Ws.2 and 3 that they are relatives of late Aftapuddin. So Learned Trial Court did not commit any error in observing that P.Ws. 2 and 3 are relatives and had special means of knowledge about the relationship. This claim was not discredited in cross-examination. There was also no evidence from the side of the Defendants to disprove the claim of P.Ws.2 and 3 that they are relatives of late Aftapuddin. So Learned Trial Court did not commit any error in observing that P.Ws. 2 and 3 are relatives and had special means of knowledge about the relationship. Section 50 of the Evidence Act says that the evidence of relatives, family members, neighbours are admissible on the score of relationship because such persons normally have access to the family and they get scope of acquiring special knowledge about the relationship, beheviour and conduct of the family members. P.W.1 said that she and Roshan Akhtar were sisters being the daughters of Aftapuddin. Her husband supported this stand. Since, the Plaintiff and her husband may be considered as interested persons, their evidence should not be accepted as truth without proper corroboration. P.Ws. 2 and 3 are relatives of late Aftapuddin. They supported the claim of P.Ws.1 and 4 that the Plaintiff and Roshan Akhtar were daughters of Aftapuddin. Moreover, to support the contentions of the P.Ws. certified copy of the marriage register, Ext.3, relating to the marriage of the Plaintiff was produced. In this entry Plaintiff has been described as daughter of Md. Aftapuddin and the address has been given as Mirjapur in the district of Medinapur. It was argued that Roshan Akhtar was the daughter of Aftapuddin of village-Kasba, whereas Plaintiff is the daughter of one Aftapuddin of village-Mirjapur and therefore, they were daughters of different Aftapuddin and were not sisters. It is evident from the statements of P.Ws. that Md. Aftapuddin of village kasba had three children and he died when the children were minors and that the maternal uncle took the children to his house at Mirjapur, where both the daughters were given in marriage. When the marriage of the Plaintrff was performed at Mirjapur by his maternal uncle, obviously in the marriage register, the address would be given as Mirjapur. That being the situation, the entry in Ext.3 is not in contrast to the evidence of the P.Ws, rather it supports the claim of the Plaintiff. 8. Out of the D.Ws, D.Ws. 1, 2, 4, 5, and 7 have not stated anything on the issue of relationship between the Plaintiff and Roshan Aktar. That being the situation, the entry in Ext.3 is not in contrast to the evidence of the P.Ws, rather it supports the claim of the Plaintiff. 8. Out of the D.Ws, D.Ws. 1, 2, 4, 5, and 7 have not stated anything on the issue of relationship between the Plaintiff and Roshan Aktar. D.W.3 in paragraph 4 of his statement said that Roshan Aktar was daughter of one Mehetabuddin. Defendant No. 1 as D.W. 6 stated that Roshan Aktar was daughter of Altapuddin, who was a tailor residing in a rented house at Kasba. She stated that she does not know the Plaintiff. In paragraph 15 of her statement, she stated that Plaintiff's father's house was at Kasba and she was born there. Similarly in paragraph 6 of the written statement Defendant No. 1 mentioned that Roshan Aktar was daughter of Aftapuddin of village Kasba. Once all these evidence and pleadings are considered together, one can reasonably conclude that Roshan Aktar and the Plaintiff are daughters of Aftapuddin of village Kasba. The finding of the Learned Trial Court on issue No. 3, was therefore, not unreasonable or contrary to the evidence on record. 9. The Plaintiff's claim is that Roshan Akhtar purchased the suit schedule 'kha' properties from her own funds whereas the plea of Defendant No. 1 is that these properties were purchased by Sahauddin in the name of Roshan Akhtar by way of benami transaction and that Sahauddin was the actual owner of these properties. 10. There is no dispute that the sale deeds relating to the suit land marked as Exts.4 & L are in favour of Roshan Akhtar. There is also no dispute that these lands were mutated in the name of Roshan Akhtar and the rent of this land is being paid all along in the name, of Roshan Akhtar. The case of the Defendants is that even if the sale deed, mutation records, rent receipts of the suit land, all stand in the name of Roshan Akhtar the suit property did not belong to her and that it was actually the property of Sahauddin, who purchased these properties by way of benami transaction. Whenever a right over a property is claimed through a benami transaction, the burden of proving that sales were benami lies with the person, who alleges the transaction to be benami. Whenever a right over a property is claimed through a benami transaction, the burden of proving that sales were benami lies with the person, who alleges the transaction to be benami. As has been observed by the Apex Court in the cases of Vidhyadhar Krishnarao Mungi and Others Vs. Usman Gani Saheb Konkani and Others, and Valliammal (D) by Lrs. Vs. Subramaniam and Others the essence of benami transaction is the intention of the party or parties concerned and often, such intention is shrouded in a thick veil which cannot be easily pierced through. But such difficulties do not relieve the person asserting the transaction to be benami of any part of the serious onus that rests on him, nor justify the acceptance of mere conjectures or surmises, as a substitute of proof. In order to test whether a particular sale is benami or not, the following six circumstances can be taken into consideration. (i) The source from which the purchase money came; (ii) The nature and possession of the property, after the purchase; (iii) Motive, if any, for giving the transaction a benami colour; (iv) The position of the parties and the relationship, if any, between the claimant and the alleged benamidar; (v) The custody of the title deeds after the sale; and (vi) The conduct of the parties concerned in dealing with the property after the sale. In the present case none of the witnesses examined by the Defendants stated that Sahauddin paid the consideration money to the vendor for the suit land. None of them also claimed that he/she was present at the time of payment of the consideration money for the suit land. So, there was no direct evidence regarding payment of consideration money by Sahauddin. D.Ws. 3, 6 and 7 stated that Sahauddin had wood and rice business. But none of them stated what was the extent of income from such business and whether such income was sufficient for payment of consideration money for the suit land or whether such business had any direct link with payment of consideration money. No document, statement, licence, accounts or records of the alleged business of Sahauddin was produced as evidence. Only a note book, Extd. H was produced, which allegedly contains some entries in the handwriting of Sahauddin. The genuineness of the entries of Ext. H was seriously challenged by the Plaintiff. No document, statement, licence, accounts or records of the alleged business of Sahauddin was produced as evidence. Only a note book, Extd. H was produced, which allegedly contains some entries in the handwriting of Sahauddin. The genuineness of the entries of Ext. H was seriously challenged by the Plaintiff. No credible evidence was produced to prove the writings of Ext. H. This document was produced several years after filing of the written statement and there was no indication in the written statement about existence of such a note book. Be that as it may, even if the version of D.W. 5, Ext. H are accepted, it can only be inferred that Sahauddin had some business in wood, rice and paddy. D.W. 1, Secretary of the Gram Panchayat produced Exts. A & B, which show that Sahauddin was paying holding tax at the rate of Rs. 2/4 anas annually. From this payment, P.W. 1 assessed that the annual income of Sahauddin was Rs. 20/- only. This estimate is unrealistic, but these documents suggest that Sahauddin was a person having modest income. It is worthwhile to note that in the sale document, there is a recital that the consideration money was paid by Roshan Akhtar and in one of the sale deeds, it has been mentioned that the consideration amount was paid from her 'Stridhan'. The said documents were registered ones and were attested by the witnesses as well as Sub-Registrar. Therefore, the entries in the document have presumptive value and it was for the Defendant No. 1 to dispel such presumption, but no direct evidence from the side of Defendant No. 1 is available in this regard. The only plea taken is that Roshan Akhtar had no income or money. In this regard, the statement of P.W. 1 is that Roshan Akhtar got some money from her 1st husband and with that money she purchased the suit properties. P.Ws. 1 and 4 stated that the 1st husband of Roshan Akhtar was an advocate of Dinajpur. Defendant No. 1 stated that Roshan Akhtar was not married to any advocate of Dinajpur and she had married to a person of Pathanmahala of Balasore district. But she is not able to say the identity of that person. P.Ws. 1 and 4 stated that the 1st husband of Roshan Akhtar was an advocate of Dinajpur. Defendant No. 1 stated that Roshan Akhtar was not married to any advocate of Dinajpur and she had married to a person of Pathanmahala of Balasore district. But she is not able to say the identity of that person. It is pertinent to note that Defendant No. 1 came into picture only after her marriage to Sahauddin and therefore" she could not have any knowledge about the 1st marriage of Roshan and the status of her 1st husband. Defendant No. 1 tried to make out a case that she heard from Roshan Akhtar about her past, but this claim is not acceptable because she admits that she had not seen Sahauddin and only after marriage, she saw and knew Sahauddin. If she did not know Sahauddin and never saw him, she could not have been a close friend on regular visiting term to the house of Roshan Akhtar. In any case, it is the admitted case of the parties that Roshan Akhtar had a first husband, who died soon after her marriage. In such a situation, the claim of the Plaintiff that Roshan Akhtar got some money and jewellery from her 1st husband can be accepted as probable. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that Roshan Akhtar could not have got any jewellery or money from her 1st husband as muslim wife gets dower money only on divorce. As per Section 285 of the Mohomedan Law dower is a sum of money or other property, which the wife is entitled to receive from the husband in consideration of the marriage. The plea of the Plaintiff that Roshan had some money and jewellery was thus not improbable. In addition to this, there was indication in the sale documents that Roshan paid the consideration out of her 'Stridhan'. The burden of disproving such probable claim was on the Defendants, but the evidence and circumstances do not suggest in any manner that Sahauddin paid the consideration money for the suit land. 11. In addition to this, there was indication in the sale documents that Roshan paid the consideration out of her 'Stridhan'. The burden of disproving such probable claim was on the Defendants, but the evidence and circumstances do not suggest in any manner that Sahauddin paid the consideration money for the suit land. 11. It is strenuously argued by Learned Counsel for the Appellant that there is admission of the Plaintiff in her cross-examination that the suit lands were purchased by her husband in her name as he had other two brothers and that Sahauddin gave money for purchase of the suit properties and in the face of such admission, production of all other evidence becomes insignificant. This contention was also raised before the Learned Trial Court. It appears that in paragraph 16 there is recording which is as follows: It is a fact that Sahauddin purchased the suit lands in the name of his wife Roshan as benami as he has other two brothers. Sahauddin had given the money for purchase of the suit property.... Soon after this recording, the Plaintiff filed a petition for reexamination on the ground that it was recorded so by mistake and that she being a pardanashini lady suffering from high blood pressure was confused after prolonged cross-examination. Learned Trial Court rejected this prayer with observation that actually the Plaintiff answered the suggestion without understanding the question and that she never meant to admit that it was a benami transaction. Learned Trial Court had occasion to observe the demeanour of the witnesses and tenor of her statement. When the said Court felt that the Plaintiff did not actually admit the benami transaction and that under confusion, she answered the suggestion, the said observation has to be honoured. Moreover, in her entire evidence, P.W.1 maintained that Roshan Akhtar purchased the suit land from her own funds. So, she could not have really meant while answering the suggestion that Sahauddin purchased the land in the name of Roshan Aktar by way of benami transaction and that he paid the consideration money. It is understandable that a pardanashini lady after prolonged cross-examination for two days would be confused and might give incorrect answer to a suggestion. That being so, lot of importance cannot be attached to the so-called admission of P.W.1 in paragraph 16. 12. It is understandable that a pardanashini lady after prolonged cross-examination for two days would be confused and might give incorrect answer to a suggestion. That being so, lot of importance cannot be attached to the so-called admission of P.W.1 in paragraph 16. 12. The nature of possession of a property and the custody of the title deeds after sale in the present case are not of much-consequence because admitted Roshan Akhtar and Sahauddin were husband and wife and Roshan was a pardanashini lady. As has been said in the case of Vidyadhar Krishnarao Mungi and Ors. (supra), it is the common knowledge that in the old age the husband used to manage the properties of his wife because she was not well educated and used to keep herself in parda. The fact that Sahauddin was managing the suit land and the sale deeds were in his custody would thus be no evidence in support of benami transaction. 13. Regarding motive, Defendant No. 1 canvassed the proposition that in order to avoid any claim by his step brothers, Sahauddin purchased the suit properties in the name of his wife. In support of this contention, a letter, Ext. D and its cover Ext. D/1 were produced. First of all, there was no mention or indication about this document in the written statement and there was also no hint about the existence of the letter, Ext. D. A letter was produced by D.W. 3 five years after filing of the written statement. There was no postage stamp on the cover and D.W.3 admitted that he had no direct knowledge about the writing of the letter by Mohiuddin or that he had any direct correspondence with Mohiuddin. In that situation, D.W.3 was not a competent person to prove the writings on Ext. D as that of Mohiuddin. Moreover, it cannot be forgotten that D.W.3 is the brother of Defendant No. 1 and is a practicing advocate, who was also appearing as Counsel for Defendant No. 1. So, much reliance cannot be placed on the evidence of D.W.3 or the letter, Ext. D. Be that as it may, the letter, Ext. D at best reveals that one Sk. Gulam Mohiuddin, step brother of Sahauddin allegedly wrote the letter, Ext. So, much reliance cannot be placed on the evidence of D.W.3 or the letter, Ext. D. Be that as it may, the letter, Ext. D at best reveals that one Sk. Gulam Mohiuddin, step brother of Sahauddin allegedly wrote the letter, Ext. D offering sale of the suit land to Sahauddin with a plea that money was required for payment of permanent alimony to the divorced wives of Gulam and Nasiruddin. Even if the contents of this letter is accepted, it only shows that the step mother and step brother of Sahauddin offered to sell the suit land. This letter no way proved that Sahauddin purchased the suit land. It is just probable that after this offer, Sahauddin and his wife discussed the matter and the land was purchased with the money of Roshan Akhtar. The probability of this conclusion sets support from the contents of the sale deed, mutation records etc. That apart as per Section 132 of Islamic Law (Personal), step relations have got no mutual right of inheritance. Therefore, a step brother cannot claim any right over the property of his step brother. So, the proposition that Sahauddin entered into a benami transaction to avoid any future claim by the step brothers, cannot be accepted. 14. Apart from consideration, motive and possession, the conduct of the parties subsequent to sale transaction is an important factor. In the present case, admittedly the sale documents stand in the name of Roshan Akhtar. Basing on the sale documents, mutation proceedings were filed and the suit lands were mutated in the name of Roshan Akhtar and thereafter rents were regularly paid in the name of Roshan Akhtar. The rent receipts, Ext. K. series show that even after the death of Roshan Akhtar, Sahauddin paid the rent in her name and even Defendants continued payment of rent in the name of Roshan Akhtar. Neither Sahauddin nor the Defendants ever tried to get a declaration that the suit land was not the property of Roshan Akhtar and that it was the property of Sahauddin. They did not even approach the revenue and settlement authorities to correct the entries in the records and to accept the rent in their names. No evidence or circumstance has been put-forth by Defendant No. 1 to show that Sahauddin ever refuted the ownership of his wife Roshan Akhtar over the suit properties during his life time. They did not even approach the revenue and settlement authorities to correct the entries in the records and to accept the rent in their names. No evidence or circumstance has been put-forth by Defendant No. 1 to show that Sahauddin ever refuted the ownership of his wife Roshan Akhtar over the suit properties during his life time. Such conduct of the parties are contrary to the theory of benami transaction. The foregoing discussions thus show that Defendant No. 1 could not discharge the onus of proving benami transaction and could not dispel the presumption of ownership of Roshan Akhtar. Therefore, the suit properties must be held to be the properties of Roshan Akhtar. 15. The findings recorded in issue Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6 and 7 are not seriously challenged and therefore, does not require discussion. Regarding issue No. 8, there is no dispute that in the self acquired property of Roshan Akhtar, her husband and her uterine sister would be legal heirs as according to sunni law of inheritance, the husband would get half share and the uterine sister/sisters would get the remaining half share. In the present case Sahauddin being the husband was thus entitled to half share and the Plaintiff being the only uterine sister of Roshan was entitled to the other half share. Learned Trial Court, therefore, rightly decreed the suit for partition and allotted half share of the suit properties to the Plaintiff. The Defendants being the widow and son of Sahauddin would accordingly get the share of Sahauddin and the present Respondents, who are the legal heirs of the Plaintiff, Hasina Akhtar would get the other half share. The appeal is thus without any merit and is dismissed on contest with cost. Final Result : Dismissed