JUDGMENT : Valmiki J. Mehta, J. (Oral):-- C.M. No. 9954/2014 1. For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 26 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned, subject to just exceptions. 2. C.M stands disposed of. C.M. No. 9953/2014 1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2. C.M stands disposed of. RSA No. 148/2014 & C.M. No. 9952/2014 (Stay) 1. This regular second appeal under Section 100 of CPC impugns the concurrent judgments of the Courts below; of the Trial Court dated 27.4.2013 and the First Appellate Court dated 21.2.2014; by which the suit of the appellant/plaintiff for partition/declaration/possession and injunction was dismissed. 2. The appellant/plaintiff claimed that she was the owner of the suit property bearing No. 79/6/1, village Nangloi Jat Colony as house No. RZC-50 (old No. RZB-11), Nangloi Jat Colony, New Delhi. She claimed to have purchased the property for a consideration of Rs. 1,85,000/- from its lawful owner Udai Bir Singh. The appellant/plaintiff claimed that she had paid the entire price and Udai Bir Singh executed the usual documents being the agreement to sell, power of attorney, receipt, affidavit etc. on 18.8.1998, jointly in favour of the plaintiff and the defendant. It was contended that the respondent/defendant actually did not pay any price whatsoever and the appellant/plaintiff is the sole owner of the suit property. 3. The respondent/defendant pleaded that the appellant/plaintiff had nothing to do with the suit property and the suit property was purchased by Balram, the husband of the respondent/defendant and in whose favour the documents dated 18.8.1998 were executed. These documents were duly registered with the Sub-Registrar. 4. Both the Courts below have found that the documents showing rights/title in the suit property were in the name of the husband of the respondent/defendant, and which were in fact admitted by the appellant/plaintiff being the documents Ex.PW3/D1 (GPA), Ex.PW3/D2 (Agreement to Sell), Ex.PW3/D3 (Affidavit) and Ex.PW3/D4 (Receipt). Accordingly, the Courts below have held that the appellant/plaintiff has no concern with the suit property. 5. In my opinion, besides the fact that the appellant/plaintiff failed to prove any title to the suit property, the suit ought to have been dismissed at the very initial stage because the suit was barred by the provisions of Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, inasmuch as, the husband of the respondent/defendant was, as per the documentation, the owner of the suit property. However, this issue was not urged and framed and therefore the suit was tried to the hilt; the first appeal was filed which was dismissed and now this second appeal is filed and all of which was unnecessary because of the Benami Act. 6. In view of the above, since no substantial question of law under Section 100 of CPC arises, the appeal is not maintainable and therefore the same is dismissed, leaving parties to bear their own costs. 7. Since the appeal is dismissed, the stay application is also dismissed.