Law: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)

Section: 42

Law: Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882)

Section: 41

Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 42-Declaratory suit by plaintiff in possession of property that sale-deed executed by his benamidar not binding on him and praying further that defendants be restrained from interfering with his possession-Payment of fixed court fee as well as court fee for consequential relief prayed, viz. permanent injunction-Sufficient-Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), S. 7(iv)(c) and Sch. 11, Art. 17(iii).   Joseph Lazarus v. Isha Khan A I R 1958 Pat. 108 held not applicable.   Kalipada Mondal and others v. Kali Charan Mondal and others A I R 1949 Cal. 204 distinguished.   Mst. Rupia v. Bhatu Mahton A I R 1944 Pat. 17 and Baibakilal Basak v. Iqbal Ahmed Quraishi and another 17 D L R 119 ref.   Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), S. 41-Provision intended for protection of bona fide purchaser for value without notice-Failure to get original title-deed or even inspect same-Indicates absence of bona fides.   JUDGMENT   A. SUBHAN CHOUDHURI, J.-This appeal is at the instance of the defendants and it arises out of a suit for declara tion that the kabala executed by plaintiff No. 1, in favour of the defendants is a void document and that the plaintiff No. 1 being a benamdar of plaintiff No. 2, he had no right to sell the disputed lands to the defendants and that the kabala executed by the plaintiff No. 1 in favour of the defendants is not binding on plaintiff No. 2, being a void document so far as plaintiff No. 2 is concerned. There was also a prayer for a permanent injunction upon the defendants restraining them from getting the kabala registered and from entering upon the suit lands. .   Plaintiff No. 1 Mofizur Rahman Sheikh is a son of plaintiff No. 2 Hajari Sheikh.Their case, briefly stated, is that they were formerly residents of village Mollapara in the district of Nadia and have all along been in joint mess. During the last communal disturbance plaintiff No. 2 exchange his properties in India with those of one Prionath Biswas in Pakistan and after making such exchange the plaintiff No. 2 migrated to Pakistan, while Prionath migrated to India. ' Plaintiff No. 2 took possession of Prionath's…