JUDGMENT : 1. The second appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 20.02.2017 and decree sealed and signed on 06.03.2017 passed by learned District Judge-VII, Palamau at Daltonganj in Title Appeal No. 47 of 2014, whereby the learned appellate court has dismissed the appeal of the appellant and affirmed the judgment dated 19.09.2014 and decree signed on 29.09.2014 passed by learned Senior Civil Judge No. II, Palamau at Daltonganj in Title Suit No. 127 of 2010. 2. The plaintiffs’ case is that the Original plaintiff Bali Mahto was retired government employee from the Department of Irrigation, Government of Bihar and he served the government since 1956 to 1992. During his service tenure, the plaintiff had purchased lands through different sale deeds in the name of his wife Lakhiya Devi vide sale deed no. 4334 of 1976, deed no. 1214 of 1982, deed no. 9268 of 1982, deed no. 358 of 1994, 2195 of 1994, deed no. 5655 of 1994, deed no. 10516 of 1994, deed no. 6927 of 1995 and deed no. 5792 of 1999, though he has paid the entire consideration money himself from his earnings. Lakhiya Devi, wife of the plaintiff is only name lender in the above sale deeds. The original plaintiff was in continuous cultivating possession over the suit land and also constructed residential house over Plot No. 217. The plaintiff’s wife Lakhiya Devi died in the year 2005, leaving behind her husband (plaintiff), two sons and four daughters. The aforesaid land was running in the name of Lakhiya Devi, but the plaintiff himself paid the rent to the State Government and obtained rent receipt. The defendant no. 1 is one of the daughters of plaintiff and Lakhiya Devi and defendant no. 2 is son-in-law of defendant no. 1, who has brought his mother-in-law in collusion in order to raise dispute with regard to title of Original Plaintiff Bali Mahto in respect of suit land obtained a deed of Power of Attorney from defendant no. 1 on 21.09.2010 and thereafter, the defendant no. 2 on the basis of said power of attorney started negotiating for sale of portion of the suit land claiming that his mother-in-law, defendant no. 1, Kamla Devi has got share after the death of Lakhiya Devi. 3. 1 on 21.09.2010 and thereafter, the defendant no. 2 on the basis of said power of attorney started negotiating for sale of portion of the suit land claiming that his mother-in-law, defendant no. 1, Kamla Devi has got share after the death of Lakhiya Devi. 3. A suit was filed by the plaintiff with following reliefs:- (A) for declaration that plaintiff is real purchaser of suit land and Lakhiya Devi was only name lender; (B) For declaration that the defendant no. 1 has no legal right to execute and register the power of Attorney No. 10359/183 dated 21.09.2010 in respect of suit land or portion thereof; (C) For cost of the suit and (D) For any other relief or reliefs for which the plaintiff is entitled. 4. Defendants have appeared and filed their written statement jointly on 14.02.2011. The specific case of the defendants is that admittedly Lakhiya Devi died leaving behind two sons and four daughters, but the plaintiff has arrayed only Kamla Kuer as defendant and left other legal heirs, as such, suit is barred for non-joinder of necessary parties, apart from improper value and maintainability of the suit. Defendants have asserted that Lakhiya Devi died in the year 2005 and all her sons and daughters are co-sharers and the plaintiff is wrongly claiming that he became the absolute owner of the property standing in the name of his wife, though plaintiff is conscious of recital of all the sale deeds as the land in question is being purchased by Lakhiya Devi for her own benefits as well as for the benefits of all her legal heirs. The defendants have further asserted that the suit is barred under the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988. Thus, plaintiff has no right, title, interest over the suit land on the ground of benamidar, after coming into force of the aforesaid Act. During life time of Lakhiya Devi, the plaintiff never asserted his own right, title over the suit land, rather the entire suit land has been inherited by her husband i.e. the plaintiff, two sons and four daughters, each having 1/7th share in the undivided and unpartitioned immovable property. During life time of Lakhiya Devi, the plaintiff never asserted his own right, title over the suit land, rather the entire suit land has been inherited by her husband i.e. the plaintiff, two sons and four daughters, each having 1/7th share in the undivided and unpartitioned immovable property. Lakhiya Devi was the real owner of the suit land, who had paid consideration money in which her Stridhan ornaments, gifts and valuable assistance of her two sons and married daughter's husband was used as contributed fund from which she had purchased the suit land through various sale deeds for her own benefits as well as for benefit of her legal heirs. The husband (Plaintiff) was witness in the sale deeds. Not a single sale deed was executed in which consideration amount has been paid by the plaintiff. Since, the plaintiff was in possession of all the personal belonging of Lakhiya Devi being husband, as such, on her death, he got custody of all papers from her box, but this is no evidence claiming title and possession over the suit land, much less in total hostility and open denial of her own title. The Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act, 1988 does not recognize when wife acquired land for her own benefit as well as for the benefit of her legal heirs. The dispute cropped up between the defendant no. 1 and the plaintiff soon after the Shradh ceremony of Lakhiya Devi when all her daughters, son-in-law and sons participated and contributed. The defendant no. 1 asked plaintiff to partition the suit land according to her share and supplied photocopy of all original sale deeds, which the plaintiff assured, but did not comply the same. The defendant no. 1 got knowledge from few persons that plaintiff is in collusion with his sons and together they have made unholy alliance to deny any share to the daughter of Late Lakhiya Devi. Then only defendant no. 1 decided to execute and register power of attorney in favour of defendant no. 2, so that plaintiff or his sons will not succeed in spreading rumor that the suit land is absolute property of the plaintiff only and her daughters have no share therein. 5. The defendants have claimed that defendant no. Then only defendant no. 1 decided to execute and register power of attorney in favour of defendant no. 2, so that plaintiff or his sons will not succeed in spreading rumor that the suit land is absolute property of the plaintiff only and her daughters have no share therein. 5. The defendants have claimed that defendant no. 1 has got right, title and interest over the suit land according to her share which is equal to the share of the sons of the deceased mother under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as amended on 09.09.2005. Thus, the power of attorney executed by defendant no. 1 in favour of defendant no. 2 is a good and valid documents and prayed to dismiss the suit. 6. On the basis of the pleadings, the trial court has framed as many as eight issues for adjudication of the suit:- I. Is the suit as framed and filed in its present form, maintainable? II. Has the plaintiff valid cause of action for the suit? III. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary party? IV. Is the suit barred under the provision of Benami Transaction (Prohition) Act, 1988? V. Whether the sale deed standing in the name of Lakhiya was self-acquired property of the plaintiff? VI. Whether the defendant No. 1 Kamla Kuer had valid right to execute any power of Attorney with respect to the suit land and whether the power of Attorney No. 10359/183 dated 21.09.2010 is valid, genuine & operative? VII. Is the palintif entitled to the relief as sought? VIII. To what other relief or relieves the plaintiff is entitled? 7. In order to prove its case, the plaintiffs have examined six witnesses; P.W.-1, Ram Charitar Mahto, P.W.-2, Nathuni Mahto, P.W.-3, Udeshwar Mahto, P.W.-4, Gulabi Ram, P.W.-5, Bali Mahto and P.W.-6, Ramlakhan Dubey. 8. In addition to that, plaintiffs have exhibited following documents:- Ext. 1 – Original copy of sale deed No. 243 dated 12.01.1976. Ext. 1/a – Original copy of sale deed No. 4334 dated 15.04.1975. Ext. 1/b – Original copy of sale deed No. 9939 dated 06.09.1975 Ext. 1/c – Original sale deed No. 10516 dated 26.10.1994. Ext. 1/d – Original sale deed No. 1214 dated 01.02.1988. Ext. 1/e – Original sale deed No. 4392 dated 12.04.1989. Ext. 1/f – Original sale deed No. 9268 dated 09.08.1990. Ext. 1/g – Original sale deed No. 358 dated 10.01.1994. Ext. 1/c – Original sale deed No. 10516 dated 26.10.1994. Ext. 1/d – Original sale deed No. 1214 dated 01.02.1988. Ext. 1/e – Original sale deed No. 4392 dated 12.04.1989. Ext. 1/f – Original sale deed No. 9268 dated 09.08.1990. Ext. 1/g – Original sale deed No. 358 dated 10.01.1994. Ext. 1/h – Original sale deed No. 2195 dated 25.02.1994. Ext. 1/i – Original sale deed No. 6927 dated 18.07.1995 (with objection). Ext. 2 to 2/c – Rent receipts No. 5380230, 5380232, 5380233, 5380234. Ext. 3 – Original registered power of attorney executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of Defendant No. 2. 9. The defendants have also examined three witnesses on their behalf; namely, DW-1, Raju Mahto, DW-2, Ramdeo Sao and DW-3, Kamla Kuer. But, no documentary evidence has been adduced by the defendants in support of thier case. 10. The trial court has dismissed the suit of the plaintiff on contest with cost. 11. The plaintiff has preferred title appeal before the appellate court vide Title Appeal No. 47 of 2014. 12. The learned appellate court formulated following points for determination of the appeal:- I. Whether the sale deeds standing in the name of Lakhiya Devi was self-acquired property of the plaintiff? II. Whether the defendant no. 1 Kamla Kuer had valid right to execute any Power of Attorney with respect to the suit land and whether the Power of Attorney no. 10359/183 dated 21.09.2010 is valid, genuine and operative? III. Whether the suit is barred under the provisions of Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act, 1988? IV. Whether the suit as framed is maintainable? 13. The learned appellate court decided Point Nos. I, II & III jointly against the plaintiff / appellant and dismissed the appeal. 14. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and decree passed by both the courts below, the plaintiff / appellant has preferred this appeal. 15. Learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Rahul Kumar Gupta, has assailed the impugned judgment on the ground that the suit is not barred by Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act, 1988 and in all the ten sale deeds, the entire consideration amount has been paid by the plaintiff from his own earnings being Class-IV employee, whereas both the courts below have considered the aforesaid purchase made by Lakhiya Devi without any evidence. 16. 16. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that the finding given by the learned trial court with regard to Issue No. IV to the effect that the suit is barred under the provisions of Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act, 1988 is perverse, in view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nand Kishore Mehra Vs. Sushila Mehra reported in 1995 (4) SCC 572 , whereby the Hon'ble Apex Court dealt with the scope of Section 3, 2, 4 (1) & 2 of the Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act and held as follows:-“Sub-section (1) of Section 3, prohibits a person from entering into any benami transaction. Sub-Section (3) of Section 3 makes a person who enters into a benami transaction liable for punishment. Section 5 makes properties held benami liable for acquisition without payment of any amount. But, when sub-section (2) of Section 3 permits a person to enter into a benami transaction of purchse of property in the name of his wife or unmarried daughter by declaring that the prohibition contained against a person in entering into a benami transaction in sub-section (1) of Section 3, does not apply to him. The question of punishing the person concerned in the transaction under subsection (3) thereof or the question of acquiring the property concerned in the transaction under Section 5, can never arise, as otherwise, the exemption granted under Section 3(2) would become redundant.” 17. Heard, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Rahul Kumar Gupta, perused the material brought on record including the judgment passed by both the courts below. From perusal of entire material, it appears that Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act, 1988 came into force on 05.09.1988 and purchase under benami transaction is only prohibited after enactment of the Act, which is punishable under Sub-Section (3) of Section 3 of the Act. Section 2(a) of the said Act provides that Benami transaction means any transaction in which property is transferred to one person for a consideration paid or provided by another person. Section 2(a) of the said Act provides that Benami transaction means any transaction in which property is transferred to one person for a consideration paid or provided by another person. Section 3 of the said Act provides that, (i) No person shall enter into any Benami Transaction (ii) Nothing of sub-section 1 shall able to, (a) The purchase of property by any person in the name of his wife or unmarried daughter and it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the said property had been purchased for the benefits of his wife or the unmarried daughters. 18. The question particularly is that the purchase was Benami or not, which as a matter of fact, cannot be agitated in second appeal, when two courts have given concurrent finding. 19. The consistent case of the defendants is that Lakhiya Devi purchased the said property from her Stridhan ornaments, gifts and valuable assistance from her two sons and married daughters and also by selling vegetables in the market and the entire lands were purchased by her from her personal income. Exhibit-1/e & 1/f are the sale deeds attested by nephew of the plaintiff namely, Raju Mahato and his father Panchu Mahto and there is clear recital before the registering authority that consideration money has been paid by Vendee. Thus, both the courts below have rightly considered that evidence of D.W.-1 cannot be left out. The issue akin to this Court has already been decided by the Apex Court in the case of Nand Kishore Mehra (Supra). It has been held in the said case that “Sub-Section 2 of Section 3 permits a person to enter into benami transaction of purchase of property in the name of his wife or unmarried daughter by declaring that the prohibiton contained against a person in entering into a benami transaction in sub-section (1) of Section 3, does not apply to him. The question of punishing the person concerned in the transaction under sub-section (3) thereof or the question of acquiring the property concerned in the transaction under Section 5, can never arise. Otherwise the exemption granted under Section 3 (2) would become redundant”. 20. The question of punishing the person concerned in the transaction under sub-section (3) thereof or the question of acquiring the property concerned in the transaction under Section 5, can never arise. Otherwise the exemption granted under Section 3 (2) would become redundant”. 20. The suit has been rightly dismissed by both the courts below as the plaintiff has not impleaded his other sons or daughters as party in the suit, as their interest also involved in the suit as they have also inherited the property of her mother Lakhiya Devi. They have not been impleaded party by the plaintiff even after objection raised by defendants in their written statement. Thus, both the courts below have rightly held that suit is barred under the provisions of Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act, 1988 as well as the suit is also barred for non-joinder of necessary parties. The sale deeds standing in the name of Lakhiya Devi (deceased), wife of plaintiff are not self-acquired property of the plaintiff and the defendant no. 1 Kamla Kuer has valid right to execute power of Attorney with regard to land of her mother Lakhiya Devi to the extent of her share. 21. Accordingly, the second appeal is dismissed as no substantial question of law is made out in view of judgment in the case of Nand Kishore Mehra Vs. Sushila Mehra (Supra).