JUDGMENT AND ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. S.M. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. B. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. This is an appeal under Section 100 of the CPC from the judgment dated 19.12.2012 delivered in Title Appeal No. 34 of 2011 by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 2, West Tripura, Agartala. At the time of admitting this appeal, by the order dated 19.04.2013, the following substantial question of law was formulated by this court for hearing of the appeal: “Whether the suit land purchased by the plaintiff-respondent in the name of the defendant- appellant may be termed as a ‘benami’ transaction because of the fiduciary relationship between the appellant and the respondent? The appellant was given liberty to urge any other substantial question of law at the time of hearing of the appeal. Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, however, did not insist this court for formulating any other substantial question of law. 3. For deciding the appeal, on the basis of the said substantial question of law, the facts those are essentially required are noted briefly. The suit property as described in the plaint [in Title Suit (P) No. 52 of 2010] was originally owned and possessed by one Basanta Kr. Debbarma and Pramod Ch. Debbarma [both are sons of late Sashi Mohan Debbarma]. The plaintiff and the defendant purchased the suit land jointly from the original owners on 08.09.1969 by virtue of a sale deed bearing No. 1-9243. After purchase of the suit land both the plaintiff and the defendants started residing on the suit land by constructing their respective huts without any disturbance from any corner. 4. In the year 1982, the defendant namely Harekrishna Debbarma mutated the suit land exclusively in his name by filing a petition before the Deputy Collector, Sadar Revenue Circle and one mutation khatian being No. 17783 of mouja-Agartala Sheet No. 8 pertaining to touji No. 3743/758 and plot No. 6629/33965 measuring 0.04 acre of Bastu Class of land was opened. 4. In the year 1982, the defendant namely Harekrishna Debbarma mutated the suit land exclusively in his name by filing a petition before the Deputy Collector, Sadar Revenue Circle and one mutation khatian being No. 17783 of mouja-Agartala Sheet No. 8 pertaining to touji No. 3743/758 and plot No. 6629/33965 measuring 0.04 acre of Bastu Class of land was opened. During the revisional survey, the suit land was recorded in the name of the said defendant and a new khatian was prepared under No. 1366 of mouja Agartala Sheet No. 8 pertaining to the said Touji No. 374/758 and dag No. 6629/33965 corresponding to the new plot No. 853 measuring 2 gandas of bastu land. 5. As soon as the plaintiff came to know the incidence of mutation, he filed a petition under Section 95 of the TLR & LR Act, 1960 before the District Collector, West Tripura for inclusion of his name as the co-sharer in the khatian No. 1366. That petition was registered as Revenue Case No. 194/2006. The District Collector by his order dated 10.03.2008 allowed the petition and directed to record the name of the plaintiff, Babul Debbarma in Column No. 13 of khatian No. 1366 of Mouja-Agartala Sheet No. 8 as the co-holder of the title of the suit land in equal share with the defendant, Harekrishna Debbarma. In terms of the said order the khatian No. 1366 was corrected and the name of the plaintiff was recorded as the joint owner with equal share. After correction of the khatian, the said suit for partition being T.S. (Partition) No. 52 of 2010 was filed by the plaintiff as the defendant was not agreeable to cause partition of the joint property. Before the first appellate court, the defendant raised the plea that the suit land was purchased ‘benami’ showing the plaintiff as co-sharer even though at the relevant point of purchase the plaintiff was a minor aged only 12 years and he had no independent source of income. The suit land was actually purchased from the income of the defendant and as such the real owner of the suit land was the plaintiff. On the basis of such pleading, the trial court, the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division No. 2, Agartala, West Tripura framed the following issues for purpose of adjudication of the suit. “1. The suit land was actually purchased from the income of the defendant and as such the real owner of the suit land was the plaintiff. On the basis of such pleading, the trial court, the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division No. 2, Agartala, West Tripura framed the following issues for purpose of adjudication of the suit. “1. Is the suit maintainable in its present form and nature? 2. Whether the suit land is required to be partitioned, if so, what should be the share of the plaintiff and the defendant over the suit land? 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get a decree of partition as prayed for? 4. To what other relief/reliefs the parties are entitled to get?” 6. While deciding the Issue No. 2 as stated, the trial court has observed as under: “In the present suit though the defendant claimed that consideration for the transfer flowed from him but the transfer of the suit land was not taken only in the name of the plaintiff but also in the name of the defendant himself. So, it cannot be said that the plaintiff was a Benamidar of the defendant. Rather, from the evidence on record and the pleadings of the defendant it is strongly presumed that the purchase of suit land by the defendant in the name of his younger brother i.e. the plaintiff of this suit out of love and affection as only a gift in favour of the plaintiff by the defendant of this suit. From the contention of the registered sale deed (Exbt.1) it is clear that the suit land was purchased in the name of the plaintiff land the defendant of this suit accepting and admitting their equal share upon the suit land. So, the suit land is required to be partitioned amongst the parties to this suit land both the plaintiff and defendant are entitled to get equal share over the suit land.” 7. Accordingly, the preliminary decree was passed declaring the equal share of the plaintiff and the defendant on the suit land. 8. The said judgment and preliminary decree dated 14.06.2011 was challenged by the defendant by filing an appeal under Section 96 of the CPC being Title Appeal No. 34 of 2011 in the court of the District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala. 8. The said judgment and preliminary decree dated 14.06.2011 was challenged by the defendant by filing an appeal under Section 96 of the CPC being Title Appeal No. 34 of 2011 in the court of the District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala. In the course of time, for hearing, the title appeal was transferred to the court of the Additional District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala, Court No. 2 who by the impugned judgment dated 19.12.2012 has dismissed the suit by affirming the finding of the trial court on observing as under: “12. From the pleadings as well as from the submissions of both sides I find that it is admitted fact that the suit property was purchased in the name of both Shri Harekrishna Debbarma and Babul Debbarma, the two brothers, jointly on 08.9.1969 by a registered sale deed (Exhibit-1). Certified copy of order dated 10.3.2008 passed in Revision Case No. 194 of 2006 under Section 95 of the TLR & LR Act passed by learned District Collector West Tripura, Agartala reveals that learned District Collector ordered that the name of the petitioner Shri Babul Debbarma, S/o Narendra Debbarma shall be recorded in Column No. 13 of Khatian No. 1366 of Agartala Sheet No. 8 as co-sharer with equal share with the opposite party Shri Harekrishna Debbarma. Both the documents are vital for the purpose of declaration of the suit land as ejmali. I have carefully gone through the impugned judgment and I am in the opinion that the learned court below has rightly land correctly appreciated the oral ad documentary evidence of both the parties and also rightly decided all the issues in favour of the respondent.” 9. Since whether the transaction is ‘benami’ or not, it was an inquiry into the fact though in some cases this may be a mixed question of fact and law, but so far this case is concerned, the inquiry has to be to the pure fact. On the basis of the sale deed as stated above, the concurrent finding as returned is that the suit land is jointly owned by the plaintiff, now represented by his LRs, the respondents and the defendant. This court does not find any perversity in the said finding. Accordingly, this appeal stands dismissed. Draw the decree accordingly. Send down the LCRs thereafter.