Title claims based on registered deeds survive despite benami allegations and revenue entries standing in another's name.

A civil suit for declaration of title was held maintainable despite alternative references to tenancy, because Order VII Rule 7 CPC permits alternative reliefs where the pleas are legally sustainable and the plaint as a whole relied on a registered settlement deed. The plea of benami failed because the party alleging benami bears the burden of proof, and the evidence was insufficient to displace the plaintiff's title under the registered instrument. The suit was also not barred by Section 51C of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, since a finally published record of rights does not by itself oust civil court jurisdiction to decide title and consequential revenue entries.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the suit was barred because the plaintiff sought inconsistent reliefs on the basis of title and tenancy. (ii) Whether the burden of proving benami lay on the defendant or on the plaintiff. (iii) Whether the suit for declaration of title was barred by Section 51C of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955.

Issue (i): Whether the suit was barred because the plaintiff sought inconsistent reliefs on the basis of title and tenancy.

Analysis: Order VII Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure permits alternative reliefs and even inconsistent reliefs, but only if each plea is legally maintainable. On a reading of the plaint as a whole, the claim for declaration of title was founded on the registered settlement deed executed in favour of the plaintiff and another, while the reference to the manner of purchase explained the background to the title claim. The reliefs were not found to be mutually destructive in the manner alleged.

Conclusion: The suit was not barred on the ground of inconsistent pleading.

Issue (ii): Whether the burden of proving benami lay on the defendant or on the plaintiff.

Analysis: The party asserting that a transaction is benami must establish that assertion. The defendant, having challenged the registered settlement as benami, carried the burden of proving that the apparent transfer did not reflect the real intention of the parties. The evidence accepted by the courts below was found insufficient to dislodge the plaintiff's case based on the registered settlement deed.

Conclusion: The burden was on the defendant and it was not discharged; the plea of benami failed.

Issue (iii): Whether the suit for declaration of title was barred by Section 51C of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955.

Analysis: A finally published record of rights does not, by itself, extinguish the civil court's power to determine title. The civil court can adjudicate title and the consequential correctness of revenue entries when the dispute is founded on an independent cause of action. The statutory bar was therefore not attracted so as to defeat the declaration sought by the plaintiff.

Conclusion: The suit was not barred by Section 51C of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955.

Final Conclusion: The concurrent findings in favour of the plaintiff's title were upheld and the challenge to maintainability and jurisdiction failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a plaintiff's claim to title is supported by a registered instrument, the opposing party bears the burden of proving benami, and a civil suit for declaration of title is not barred merely because the record of rights stands in another's name.

---