JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been preferred by appellants Nand Lal and Smt.Radha Bai, against three respondents Mishri Lal, Shaktishal and Chhatrasheel, being aggrieved by the judgment dated 17.04.1992 passed by the District Judge, Bhilwara in civil suit No.22/1980, by which the learned trial court decreed the suit of the plaintiff respondent No.1. 2. During the course of the appeal, Nand Lal died and the application on behalf of the legal representatives of Nand Lal has been rejected by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 16.12.2009 and, therefore, now the only appellant who remains is Radha Bai w/o Nand Lal r/o Dhanmandi, Bhilwara. 3. During the pendency of the appeal, respondent No,1 died and his LRS 1/1 Sunil, 1/2 Anil, 1/3 Sanjay and 1/4 Premi Bai were brought on record. 4. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that plaintiff respondent No.1 filed a civil suit against deceased Nand Lal, Radha Bai, Shaktishal and Chhatrasheel, for the recovery of the possession of the suit property on the ground that plaintiff respondent No.1 purchased a house in old Dhan Mandi, Bhilwara at the cost of Rs. 1,000/- from Birdi Chand Gulali by way of a registered sale deed on 22.01.1953. He remained in that house upto 1956 and that house collapsed in 1956 therefore he closed the house. In 1970 again he built a house on the same plot. On 16.01.1970 he got permission from the Municipal Board, Bhilwara for the construction of the house. The plaintiff paid Rs. 859/- to Birdichand and Rs. 141/- to Ramdas Jagetia, with whom part of the property was mortgaged. In 1996 Ram Prasad and Bansi Lal filed a suit for injunction, in which on the basis of good faith, he signed on the written statement. Plaintiff was employed in the Employment Exchange and was posted at Chittorgarh and his house was vacant therefore, he gave that house to his brother Nand Lal for residence purpose in the year 1971 and in the year 1976 he got his transfer from Chittorgarh to Bhilwara and in 1977 he got the vacant possession of the house from Nand Lal. The plaintiff started to live in another house till his house was not vacated by Nand Lal and after vacation of that house by Nand Lal, plaintiff locked the house but defendant No.1, on 05.09.1978 broke the lock and forcibly took the possession of the house. Defendant No.2 Radha Bai is the keep of defendant No.1 and she also used to live with him. Shaktishal defendant No.3 and Chhatrasheel defendant No.4 also started to live in that house. Defendant No.1 executed a registered sale deed in favour of defendant No.2 in lieu of Rs. 30,000/-. The plaintiff respondent No.1 therefore, filed a suit praying for possession of the suit property. Defendant No.3 and 4 did not file any reply and defendant No.1 and 2 filed a joint reply and had not admitted the facts of the plaint and they took a special plea that defendant Nand Lal spent thousands of rupees about 1 years back to the filing of the written statement and constructed this house. As the plaintiff is the younger brother of defendant No.1 he purchased the property in the name of plaintiff in good faith and actually the property belongs to defendant No.1 and 2. 5. On the basis of above pleadings, initially 10 issues were framed and on 09.04.1983 another issue No.11 was framed and on 01.05.1989 two more issues bearing No.12 and 13 were framed. 5. On the basis of above pleadings, initially 10 issues were framed and on 09.04.1983 another issue No.11 was framed and on 01.05.1989 two more issues bearing No.12 and 13 were framed. Thus, the total issues framed by the trial court are as under : " 1- D;k oknxzLr edku tc dPpk Fkk rc oknh us 22-01-1953 dks Jh cnzhpan ls 1000@& :i;ksa esa dz; fd;k vkSj vkf/kiR; izkIr fd;k\ 2- D;k oknh us lu~ 1970 esa/ku O;; dj oknxzLr edku dk u;k fuekZ.k fd;k\ 3- D;k izfroknh dze 1 uanyky dks oknh us ;g edku lu~ 1971 esa jgus gsrq fn;k Fkk\ 4- D;k izfroknh dze 1 us oknxzLr edku dk vkf/kiR; iqu% oknh dks lu~ 1977 esa lkSai fn;k vkSj oknh gh fuokl djus yx x;k\ 5- D;k izfroknh dze 1 fnukad 05-09-1978 dks oknh dh vuqifLFkfr esa rkyk rksM+dj vukf/kd`r :i ls vkf/kiR; tek fy;k vkSj vU; izfroknhx.k Hkh mlh essa jgus yx x;s\ 6- D;k izfroknh dze 1 us oknxzLr edku fcuk vf/kdkj ds izfroknh dze 2 dks 30]000 :i;ksa esa fodz; dj fn;k\ 7- D;k izfroknh dze 1 us oknh ds Kku esa bl edku ij gtkjh :i;ksa dk fuekZ.k dk;Z djk;k vkSj viuh iRuh dk uke fy[kok;k ijUrq oknh us bl ij dksbZ vkifRr ugha dh\ 8- D;k izfroknhx.k oknxzLr edku ds Lokeh ,MolZ ilsfl;k ds fl)kar ds vk/kkj ij jg pqds gSa\ 9- D;k oknh us okn mfpr U;k; 'kqYd ij izLrqr ugha fd;k\ 10- izfrdj D;k gSa\ 11- D;k oknxzLr tk;nkn dk fodz; i= rkjh[k 22-01-1953 csukeh rkSj ij oknh ds uke fy;k x;k\ 12- D;k fcdko ds oDr tk;nkn jgu FkhA og jde o 3 :i;s fdjk;s ds dkVdj jkeukFk us ,d fy[kkoM 08-05-1964 dh\ 13- D;k oknh us iwoZ ds gqDe bErukbZ nokeh ds izdj.k esa tokc nkos ij fo'okl gksus ls nLr[kr fd;s\ " The plaintiff examined three witnesses, namely, PW/1 Mishri Lal PW/2 Murlidhar and PW/3 Bahanwar Lal and produced 14 documents in his support. Defendant examined 8 witnesses namely, DW/1 Nand Lal, DW/2 Sohan Lal, DW/3 Vasudev, DW/4 Mool Chand, DW/5 Devi Lal, DW/6 Thawarmal, DW/7 Mangi Lal, DW/8 Usman Ghani and produced 38 documents Ex.A/1 to Ex.A/38 in support of his written statements. The learned trial court, after hearing both the parties, decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff respondent No.1. 6. Defendant examined 8 witnesses namely, DW/1 Nand Lal, DW/2 Sohan Lal, DW/3 Vasudev, DW/4 Mool Chand, DW/5 Devi Lal, DW/6 Thawarmal, DW/7 Mangi Lal, DW/8 Usman Ghani and produced 38 documents Ex.A/1 to Ex.A/38 in support of his written statements. The learned trial court, after hearing both the parties, decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff respondent No.1. 6. Counsel for the appellant contended that the learned trial court erred in deciding issue No.1 and 11 in favour of the plaintiff respondent No.1, while relying on the judgment cited by the learned trial court regarding section 4 (2) of the Benami Transaction Prohibition Act 1988. The learned trial court relied on [1989 (2) C.C.C. 33] whereas this judgment has been over ruled by the judgment of the Hon'ble apex court in R. Rajagopal Reddy v. P. Chandrasekharan [ AIR 1996 SC 238 ] and in view of this fact, the finding of the learned trial court on issue No.1 cannot be sustained and requires to be reversed. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the learned trial court also failed to appreciate the evidence of the witnesses produced on behalf of the appellant and thus challenged the findings of the learned trial court on issue No.1 and 11. 8. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent vehemently defended the judgment of the learned trial court and contended that the learned trial court took the support of the judgment reported in [1988 C.C.C. 33] as an additional factor and the finding on issue No.1 and 11 is not solely based on the above judgment. Therefore, even if it is considered that that judgment has been over ruled vide judgment of the Hon'ble apex court in the later judgment, finding on issue No.1 and 11 cannot be reversed and the learned counsel for the respondents also contended that the finding on issue No.1 and 11 are based on appreciation of the oral as well as documentary evidence and the learned trial court took note of each and every fact and documentary evidence. 9. I have considered the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the findings of the learned trial court on issue No.1 and 11. 10. Issue No.1 is regarding the fact of the purchasing of the suit property on 22.01.1953 by the plaintiff Bardichand in lieu of Rs. 9. I have considered the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the findings of the learned trial court on issue No.1 and 11. 10. Issue No.1 is regarding the fact of the purchasing of the suit property on 22.01.1953 by the plaintiff Bardichand in lieu of Rs. 1,000/- and issue No.11 is only a rebuttal of this issue which is regarding the fact that whether the sale deed dated 22.01.1953 has been registered as Benami transaction in the name of the plaintiff. The plaintiff in his evidence produced document Ex.1, which is a registered document in favour of him, and Ex.2 the receipt of the consideration amount, Ex.3 receipt of the Sub-Registrar, Bhilwara. All the three documents have been produced by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has also produced receipt Ex.4 of the amount which he paid to Ramdas Jagetia in lieu of the mortgage amount. The plaintiff further examined PW/2 Murlidhar who is the writer of Ex.1, the registered sale deed and he deposed that he wrote that document at the request of Birdichand. The learned trial court considered the arguments advanced during the course of appeal and appreciated that so far as Ex.1 is concerned, it is a registered document and its sanctity cannot be disbelieved. 11. The learned trial court disbelieved the statement of DW/1 Nand Lal on the basis of the documentary evidence provided by plaintiff Mishrilal PW/1 and the learned trial court on the basis of evidence of PW/2 Murlidhar, writer of the sale deed Ex.1 to Ex. 4, came to the conclusion that money was paid by Mishri Lal to the purchaser of the property and the corroboration by PW/2 Murlidhar further makes it clear that the actual purchaser of the property is plaintiff respondent No.1. The learned trial court, although considered the judgment of the Hon'ble apex court in [1989 C.C.C. 33] which has been over ruled by the judgment in R. Rajagopal Reddy's case (supra). But this fact has been considered as additional fact for recording its findings on issue No.1 and 11. The learned trial court, although considered the judgment of the Hon'ble apex court in [1989 C.C.C. 33] which has been over ruled by the judgment in R. Rajagopal Reddy's case (supra). But this fact has been considered as additional fact for recording its findings on issue No.1 and 11. Therefore, even if it is considered that the above judgment cited by the learned trial court, has been over ruled, the appreciation of evidence made by the learned trial court and the finding arrived at on issue No.1 and 11 does not require any interference at the first appellate stage, because the documentary evidence and the oral evidence of PW/2 Murlidhar clearly proves issue No.1 and 2 in plaintiff's favour. 12. So far as issue No.2 and 7 are concerned, issue No.2 is regarding construction of the house in the year 1970 by the plaintiff and issue No.7 is the rebuttal of this issue that defendant No.1 constructed this house. The learned trial court decided issue No.2 and 7 in favour of plaintiff respondent No.1. Counsel for the appellant contended that simply on the basis of the the evidence of the defendant that he got constructed the house in 1969-70, the trial court disbelieved the evidence of defendant and recorded the finding in favour of the plaintiff and further the trial court simply on the basis of the documents Ex.1 and Ex.4 decided issue No.2 and 7 in favour of the plaintiff. 13. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents contended that the finding of the learned trial court on issue No.2 and 7 does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity or it cannot be said to be erroneous or based on misreading of evidence. 14. I have considered the rival contentions and perused the findings on issue No.2 and 7 arrived upon by the learned trial court. 15. When the permission to construct the house has been issued by the Municipality in favour of plaintiff, simply by producing the documents A/5 to A/17 and A/21 to A/27, it cannot be said that the raw material was used for the construction of this house, because at the same time a shop was constructed by defendant No.1. 16. I have perused the statement of DW/1 Nand Lal, along with the other witnesses produced by the defendant. 16. I have perused the statement of DW/1 Nand Lal, along with the other witnesses produced by the defendant. The statement of the witnesses produced by the defendant are vague in nature because they could not disclose the date on which they performed the particular job and even in cross examination the evidence of these witnesses were completely shattered regarding the date and time and even the season in which they performed the particular act for the construction of the house. In view of this fact, the learned trial court disbelieved the evidence of the defendant appellant and I see no reason to reverse the finding on issue No. 2 and 7, as arrived at by the trial court and the finding cannot be said to be erroneous. Therefore, the finding on issue No. 2 and 7 are also affirmed. 17. Issue No.3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9,12, and 13 are more or less connected to the finding on issue No. 1 and 11, 2 and 7 and on these issues also the learned trial court appreciated the evidence of the plaintiff respondent No.1 as well as the appellant's side and also considered the documentary evidence and other facts also and when the actual receipts and registered sale document is in the name of plaintiff respondent No.1, and he has produced all the relevant documents regarding the payment of the money, the learned trial court cannot be said to have erred in arriving at the finding regarding these issues also. 18. In view of the aforementioned discussions, the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant does not carry any force and the judgment of the learned trial court cannot be said to be illegal or erroneous and it requires to be affirmed. 19. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed and the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge, Bhilwara, dated 17.04.1992 is affirmed.Cost is made easy.Appeal dismissed. *******