Rameshwar Singh Vs Initiating Officer (Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA, New Delhi)
Benami Ownership Established by Admissions and Corroborative Evidence-Unsupported Retraction Cannot Defeat Attachment
Background
The dispute concerned agricultural land in Chhattisgarh allegedly purchased by Raj Kumar Agarwal, a non-tribal person, in the name of Rameshwar Singh, a Scheduled Tribe member, to circumvent restrictions on transfer of tribal land.
The Initiating Officer treated Rameshwar Singh as the benamidar and Raj Kumar Agarwal as the beneficial owner. The provisional attachment was confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority under section 26(3) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988.
Rameshwar Singh challenged the attachment, maintaining that he had purchased the land with money accumulated by his late father. The Tribunal had to determine whether this explanation displaced his earlier statement and the documentary evidence connecting the transaction with the alleged beneficial owner.
Appellant’s Explanation
The appellant contended that he had been cultivating the land for its earlier owners and knew the seller. According to him, prolonged disputes concerning the property had persuaded the seller to accept ₹5 lakh, payable in instalments. Stamp duty, however, was paid according to the prevailing circle rate.
He disputed his statement recorded on 10 May 2018, alleging that he was an illiterate tribal labourer who had been made to sign without understanding what had been written. An affidavit dated 17 May 2018 purported to retract the statement and assert that the purchase was made from his own funds.
The appellant therefore argued that the attachment rested on a disputed statement, conjectures about his financial capacity and an incorrect understanding of the purchase consideration.
Original Admission and the Defective Retraction
The Tribunal noted that, in his original statement, the appellant had disclosed his limited income from agricultural activities and labour work. More significantly, he had stated that Raj Kumar Agarwal purchased the land in his name because he belonged to the Scheduled Tribe community.
He had also admitted that he signed the registered documents at Agarwal’s direction and received ₹10,000 for doing so. According to that statement, the possession of the land and the original title documents remained with Agarwal.
The Tribunal found serious deficiencies in the subsequent affidavit. Although dated 17 May 2018, it was posted to the Department only on 7 September 2018, without an explanation for the delay. It also referred to a purchase on 10 June 2018—a date subsequent to the affidavit itself.
Further, the Tribunal treated the registered sale deed as recording consideration of ₹16,57,800, contrary to the ₹5 lakh claimed in the affidavit. The explanation that the purchase money came from the father’s savings was unsupported by documentary evidence.
In these circumstances, the Tribunal refused to accept the retraction as true and correct.
Documentary Evidence Contradicted the Denials
The finding did not rest solely on the appellant’s statement.
Part of the land earlier held in the name of Dhaneshwar Singh had been acquired for a National Highway project. Compensation of approximately ₹64.78 lakh was credited to his bank account and withdrawn in cash within a short period.
The Tribunal noted that the withdrawals were made by Khemaram, a person who had worked for Raj Kumar Agarwal for a long time. His signature appeared on the reverse of the withdrawal cheque, together with a telephone number registered in Agarwal’s name.
Agarwal’s denial of knowing the persons concerned was also contradicted by banking and registration records. Rameshwar Singh had introduced Agarwal for opening a bank account in the name of his HUF, while Agarwal had acted as a witness to the earlier sale deed in favour of Dhaneshwar Singh.
The Tribunal considered these circumstances corroborative of the relationship and arrangement alleged by the Department.
Tests for Determining a Benami Transaction
The order reproduced the Adjudicating Authority’s application of the Supreme Court decision in Binapani Paul v. Pratima Ghosh, (2007) 6 SCC 100.
The relevant circumstances included the source of purchase money, possession after purchase, motive for using another person’s name, relationship between the parties, custody of title deeds and their subsequent conduct.
Applied to the present case, these considerations supported the Department’s conclusion. The appellant’s admission identified Agarwal as the person providing the consideration. Possession and custody of the title deeds were attributed to Agarwal. The restrictions concerning tribal land explained the use of a Scheduled Tribe purchaser’s name.
The appellant’s limited means formed part of this assessment, but the Tribunal also relied on specific admissions and independent documentary links.
Decision
The Tribunal held that the oral and documentary evidence established a close nexus between the appellant and Raj Kumar Agarwal. The subsequent claim of purchase from inherited funds could not be accepted without supporting evidence, particularly in the face of the earlier admission.
It also recorded that Agarwal’s separate appeal had been dismissed for non-prosecution and had not thereafter been pursued, whereas Rameshwar Singh’s appeal had been restored.
The appellant’s appeal was dismissed, leaving the confirmation of attachment undisturbed.
Author’s Comments
A retraction must explain and displace the earlier admission; merely replacing it with a different story is insufficient. Here, the unexplained delay, the reference to a future event and the absence of evidence concerning the father’s savings substantially weakened the affidavit.
Equally, limited financial means alone should not be confused with proof of benami ownership. The strength of this case lay in the cumulative evidence: the admission concerning consideration, payment for signing the deed, custody of documents, possession, banking connections and compensation withdrawals linked to the alleged beneficial owner.
The practical lesson is that a benami allegation must be answered across these factual elements. Registration in one’s name establishes legal title on the document; the source of funds, control and surrounding conduct may reveal whose benefit the property actually serves.
Cases Discussed: Binapani Paul v. Pratima Ghosh, (2007) 6 SCC 100 (Supreme Court), concerning the circumstances relevant to determining whether a transaction is benami.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA
This Order disposes of the Appeal No. FPA-PBPT-1041/RP/2020 filed by Shri Rameshwar Singh against the Order dated 27.11.2019 (Impugned Order) passed by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority under Section 26 (3) of theProhibition of Benami Property Transaction Act, 1988 (PBPTA), New Delhi in Reference No. R-1082/2018, whereby the Ld. Adjudicating Authority (AA) confirmed the Provisional
Attachment Order dated 09.11.2018 (PAO) passed by the Initiating Officer, BPU, Raipur under Section 24 (4) of PBPTA.
2. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant submitted that a Complaint was received that a piece of land at Khasra No. 148, P.H. No. 11, admeasuring 3.94 acres at village Borda, Tehsil- Sakti, District-Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh was allegedly a benami piece of land purchased by Shri Rameshwar Singh (Benamidar/Appellant) at the instance of one Raj Kumar Aggarwal (Beneficial/Respondent No. 2). During the course of investigation, the Initiating Officer (IO) recorded the statement of Appellant on 10.05.2018. It is alleged that, in the said statement, the Appellant stated that he earns about Rs. 1.30 Lakhs per annum out of agricultural activity and labor works. He allegedly stated that the land in question was purchased in the year 2016 by Beneficial Owner/Respondent No. 2 from Shri Dhaneshwar Singh and consideration for the purchase of the said land was paid by Respondent No. 2 to him. He also allegedly stated that he did not know Shri Dhaneshwar Singh and the original documents were with Respondent No.
2. Ld. Counsel further submitted that the said statement was categorically denied by the Appellant by way of swearing of an affidavit on the ground that, being illiterate and labour class tribal person, he was not aware as to what was written on the statement and was made to sign the piece of paper by IO and as such retracted from the alleged statement. It was further stated therein that the Appellant purchased the said piece of land for a consideration of Rs. 5,00,000/-, however, stamp duty thereon was paid as per the prevalent circle rate. The contents of the said affidavit dated 17.05.2018 are not repeated here and same be treated as part and parcel of the pleadings. However, the IO passed an erroneous Order which was wrongly confirmed by the Ld. AA.
3. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant contended that the father of Rameshwar Singh namely Late Sh. Dev Singh Sidar collected some money before his death to purchase agricultural land however, he passed away before he could purchase any property. Therefore, by utilizing such money, Rameshwar Singh purchased some agricultural land. The Appellant belong to scheduled tribe under Schedule serial No.15 under Section 165(6) of Chhattisgarh State Property Act, 1959. The Appellant already knew Shri Dhaneshwar Singh, as he is an employee of Shri Raja Surendra Bhadur Singh who was the initial owner of the land and said Shri Raja Surendra Bhadur Singh employed the Appellant to cultivate the land. Later on, Shri Raja Surendra Bhadur Singh transferred the said land to Shri Dhaneshwar Singh, who continued to employ the Appellant to cultivate the land. Ld. Counsel submitted that the said land was in dispute for a very long period of more than 20 years. Since, the property was continuously in dispute, therefore, Shri Dhaneshwar Singh informed the answering Respondent about his willingness to sell the said land even at an undervalued price. Having come to know about the willingness of Shri Dhaneshwar Singh to sell the land at an undervalued price, the Appellant offered Shri Dhaneshwar Singh to purchase the property. Since, the offeror and acceptor were already known to each other coupled with the fact that the Shri Rameshwar Singh was already cultivating the land, subsequent to negotiations Shri Dhaneshwar Singh accepted the offer and sold the land to the Appellant for a consideration of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh Only) to be paid in installments. It was further agreed by the partiers to the contract that the sale deed shall be executed only after receiving the last installment therefore, there was a delay in execution of sale deed. Thus, the land was transferred in favour of the Appellant by Shri Dhaneshwar Singh through registered Sale Deed dated 19.06.2016. Ld. Counsel contended that one Shri Kailash Tiwari, a non-tribal businessman had made several unsuccessful attempts to take over the possession of land under threat and manhandling of the Appellant.
4. Ld. Counsel submitted that the Appellant was summoned by the Department where he was examined by five persons. The Appellant had clearly informed that the land was purchased by him from his own funds. He also stated that he did not know Shri Rajkumar Agarwal and Shri Shashikant Raut. Ld. Counsel alleged that the statement of the Appellant was taken under coercion. Ld. Counsel contended that the Impugned Order is erroneous and non- reasoned. The statement of the Appellant which was denied has been relied upon. The investigation was made with pre-meditated mind. The Impugned Order is based merely on conjectures as it has treated Rs. 16.5 Lakhs as sale consideration. The Ld. AA has confirmed the PAO without application of mind. The Appellant has duly explained the sources of income. Ld. Counsel therefore prayed for allowing the Appeal.
5. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent submitted that as per the Land Revenue Code, 1959 a land belonging to a Schedule Tribe person cannot be sold to a non-Schedule Tribe person. In normal course, Shri Raj Kumar Agrawal (a non-Schedule Tribe person) could not purchase the said land of Raja Surendra Bahadur Singh, Resident of Ward No.08, Teh. Sakts Distt. Janjgir-Champa (A Schedule Tribe person). Shri Raj Kumar Agrawal, therefore, purchased the said land in the name of person of his confidence, namely Shri Dhaneshwar Singh, S/o Badal Singh, Village Tohiladih, Teh. Sakti, Distt. Janjgir- Champa, (a Schedule Tribe person) for Rs.15,36,000/- on 20.03.2015. The consideration had been paid in cash. Neither the PAN of the seller nor of the purchaser, has been mentioned in the Sale Deed dated 20.03.2015. Subsequent to the execution of the Sale Deed, 0.779 Hect. (1.94 Acres), the said land had been acquired by the Land Acquisition Officer, Champa and handed over to the National Highway Authority India (NHAI) for construction of National Highway No.200 (new 49). A compensation of Rs.64,78,164/- has been paid to the Registered Owner of the land i.e. Shri Dhaneshwar Singh, S/o Badal Singh, Village Tohiladih, Teh. Sakti, Distt. Janjgir- Champa through Cheque. The said fact had been reflected in the statement of bank account of Shri Dhaneshwar Singh with Axis Bank, Sakti wherein cheque of Rs. 64,78,164/- had been deposited. The whole amount had been withdrawn in cash within less than a month. The said bank account had been opened on 18.08.2016 and closed on 26.05.2017. The only transaction made in this account pertained to the compensation received from NHAI. The financial status of Shri Dhaneshwar Singh as on date did not reflect that the amount of Rs. 64,78,164/- had been used by him. As per the report submitted by Shri Anand Kumar, Inspector of Income Tax, Shri Dhaneshwar Singh was still living in Kaccha house in his Village Tohiladih. For some reason, there arose dispute between Shri Raj Kumar Agrawal and Shri Dhaneshwar Singh regarding distribution of the compensation. Hence, the balance 2 Acres [3.94-1.94] of land at Khasra No.148 had then been transferred to Shri Rameshwar Singh, being another man of confidence of Shri Raj Kumar Agrawal. This had been affirmed by Shri Rameshwar Singh in his statement recorded under Section 19 of the PBPTA on 10.05.2018. Shri Rameshwar Singh is also a Schedule Tribe person. The consideration of the sale of Rs.16,57,800/- had been paid in cash by Shri Raj Kumar Agrawal on 19.09.2016. Similarly, the other parcels of land which were purchased in the name of Shri Dhaneshwar Singh were subsequently transferred in the name of Shri Rameshwar Singh.
6. Ld. Counsel submitted that in the statement under Section 19(1) recorded on 10.05.2018, Shri Rameshwar Singh stated that he was engaged in agricultural activities and labour work. He earns income of Rs.60,000/- to 70,000/- per year from the agricultural activities on 2 acres 96 Decimal land belonging to him and his family at Vill. Salauni, and Rs.30,000/- to 35,000/- yearly from labour work. He had been engaged in labour work since 2014. Thus, his yearly income was approximately Rs.1.3 lakhs. Although he has a PAN, he is not an income-tax payer. It is noteworthy here that his PAN had not been mentioned in any of the sale-deeds executed in his name. He failed to furnish the PAN and Bank Statement of his account in PNB. He has also stated that except for the family land and small house at Vill. Salauni, he only owns a cycle and no other movable or immovable property. Shri Rameshwar Singh further stated that he was not aware as to the consideration which was paid by Shri Raj Kumar Agarwal to purchase land in his name in 2016 from Shri Dhaneshwar Singh Sidar. He clarified that Shri Raj Kumar Agarwal had purchased the said land in his name, because he belongs to Schedule Tribe. He also clarified that he did not know Shri Dhaneshwar Singh Sidar. Ld. Counsel emphasized that Shri Rameshwar Singh stated that he had put his signature on the registered document for the land on the direction of Shri Raj Kumar Agarwal, who paid Rs. 10,000/- to him for the same. The original registered documents and the said land were in possession of Shri Raj Kumar Agarwal. Shri Shashikant Raut Rai in his statement dated 10.05.2018 under Section 19 (1) of PBPTA confirmed that he had introduced Shri Rameshwar Singh to Shri Raj Kumar Agarwal.
7. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent submitted that Shri Rajkumar Agarwal in his statement on 28.08.2018 denied knowing either Shri Ramewshwar Singh or Shri Dhaneshwar Singh. He also denied of his involvement in transfer of land in the name by Shri Dhaneshwar Singh or Rameshwar Singh. Ld. Counsel informed that Shri Raj Kumar Agrawal filed Income Tax Returns (ITRs) for the Assessment Year 2012-13 to 2014-15 only. He did not file any ITRs after Assessment Year 2014-15. Ld. Counsel further submitted that the details submitted by Punjab National Bank revealed that Shri Rameshwar Singh was the introducer of Shri Rajkumar Agarwal for opening of bank Account of Rajkumar Agarwal HUF. The investigation revealed that Rs. 64,74,164/- which was received by Shri Dhaneshwar Singh through cheque was withdrawn in cash not by Shri Dhaneshwar Singh, but rather by Shri Khemaram S/o Vedram resident of Vill. Gormuda. The said Khemram had been working for Shri Rajkumar Agarwal since long. Shri Khemram was witness to all land transfer done at the behest of Shri Rajkumar Agarwal in the name of Rameshwar Singh on 19.09.2016. The signature on backside of cheque tallies with the signature put by Shri Khemram on the sale deed as witness. The phone no. 7389386969 written on the said cheque was an Airtel phone number and registered in the name of Shri Rajkumar Agarwal.
8. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent submitted that a Show Cause Notice had been issued on 07.09.2018 to Shri Rameshwar Singh and copy of the same was endorsed to Shri Rajkumar Agarwal. They were asked to furnish reply on or before 17.09.2018. No reply was received from the two persons. Instead, an affidavit dated 17.05.2018 by Shri Rameshwar Singh was sent through post. Ld. Counsel contended that the affidavit makes fabricated statement without any corroboration. In the affidavit it has been stated that 2 Acre of land was purchased by Shri Rameshawar Singh at Vill. Borda, Teh. Sakti, for Rs. 5,00,000/- only, whereas the cost of land as per sale deed was Rs. 16,57,800/-. The affidavit therefore poses a serious challenge to the registered sale deed which has been duly signed by Shri Rameshwar Singh in presence of two witness before the Registering Authority. Also, the source of money remained unexplained. Simply it has been stated in the affidavit that the amount is out of savings of his father. Moreover, affidavit has been dated 17.05.2018 and sent by post on 07.09.2018. There is no reason for such inordinate delay of nearly four months. Also, in Para 5 of the affidavit, it has been mentioned that Shri Rameshwar Singh purchased the land on 10.06.2018. It is therefore evident that while the date of affidavit is of 17.05.2018 yet Shri Rameshwar Singh mentions 10.06.2018, a future date, which certainly cannot be true.
9. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the immovable properties are held to be Benami in the name of Benamidar namely Shri Rameshwar Singh since Shri Ramwshwar Singh has categorically stated that Shri Rajkumar Agarwal had purchased the said land in his name and he has received only Rs. 10,000/- for signing the sale deed. He did not pay any consideration to Shri Dhaneshwar Singh for purchase of the said land. Even otherwise, there have been no evidence to show that Shri Rameshwar Singh has means or capacity for purchase of the said land, as he is person of meager income. Moreover, Shri Rajkumar Agarwal has denied knowing either Shri Rameshwar Singh or Shri Dhaneshwar Singh. However, on the contrary, his signature on the sale deed as witness indicates the contradiction in his given statement. The other documentary evidences such as bank statement goes against his contention that he was unknown to either Shri Rameshwar Singh or Shri Dhaneshwar Singh. Further Shri Dhaneshwar Singh failed to respond to summons, in spite of several opportunities given on 27.04.2018 & 14.05.2018. Shri Rameshwar Singh also failed to produce any evidence to corroborate his affidavit. A copy of the order under section 24(3) dated 28.09.2018 has also been returned by the postal authorities. It is noteworthy to mention here that if the receiver denies receiving any correspondence sent to him, the same is to be treated as “Deemed Service”. It is, thus, very obvious that Shri Rameshwar Singh has nothing more to state in this case. Ld. Counsel therefore pleaded to dismiss the Appeal.
10. We have considered the rival submissions and the material on record. It is an admitted fact that while the Appellant Shri Rameshwar Singh and Shri Dhaneshwar Singh are members of the Schedule Tribe, the alleged beneficial owner Shri Raj Kumar Agarwal is not a member of Schedule Tribe. It is also not disputed that the parcels of land which are under consideration in the Impugned Order were reserved for being owned and possessed by the members belonging to the community of Schedule Tribe. What is therefore under challenge is whether for the transfer of the said parcels of land the consideration/payment was made by Shri Raj Kumar Agarwal, even though these were transferred in the name of Shri Rameshwar Singh the alleged Benamidar.
11. We find that the investigation has brought out that Shri Rameshwar Singh and Shri Dhaneswar Singh were persons of limited means. In this regard, the statement dated 10.05.2018 under Section 19 (1) of PBPTA of Shri Rameshwar Singh has not only disclosed his poor economic status, but also the fact that he purchased the land at the behest of Shri Raj Kumar Agarwal. Shri Rameshwar Singh has also admitted that he signed the sale deed on payment of Rs. 10,000/- by Shri Raj Kumar Agarwal. In the affidavit dated 17.05.2018 filed by Shri Rameshwar Singh denial has been attempted by Shri Rameshwar Singh of certain facts revealed by him in his statement dated 10.05.2018. Certain inherent inconsistencies have been brought out by the Ld. Counsel for the Respondent. Moreover, there are other documentary evidences including the sale deed clearly shows that the cost of the land was Rs. 16,57,800/- and not Rs. 5,00,000/- claimed by the Appellant in his affidavit. While the affidavit is dated 17.05.2018 it was sent to the Department by post on 07.09.2018, a delay which remained unexplained. The affidavit talks of an event of 10.06.2018, which does not seem plausible and falsifies the affidavit. We therefore cannot accept the retraction as true and correct made by the Appellant subsequently.
12. It is to be appreciated that for acquisition of land by the State Government Authorities payment of compensation to Shri Dhaneshwar Singh amounting to Rs. 64,78,164/- in cheque was made which was withdrawn in cash within a short time. The said bank account had been opened on 18.08.2016 and closed on 26.05.2017. The only transaction made in this account pertained to the compensation received from NHAI. It is noteworthy that cash withdrawal was made by Shri Khemaram, who was working for Shri Raj Kumar Agarwal since long. The withdrawal is corroborated by the signature of Shri Khemaram at the backside of the cheque. It is also on record that the phone number on the backside is registered in the name of Shri Raj Kumar Agarwal. A dispute thereafter between Shri Raj Kumar Agarwal and Shri Dhaneshwar Singh led to dependence on Shri Rameshwar Singh for transfers of land reserved for Schedule Tribe. The denial by Shri Raj Kumar Agarwal about knowing Shri Dhaneswar Singh and Shri Rameshwar Singh does not appear to be correct. In fact, the investigation has been revealed that Shri Rameshwar Singh introduced Shri Raj Kumar Agarwal in opening of bank account in the name of Raj Kumar Agarwal HUF in Punjab National Bank. It is also on record that Shri Raj Kumar Agarwal was witness to the sale deed executed by Shri Raja Surendra Bhadur Singh in favour of Shri Dhaneshwar Singh.
13. In Paragraph 10.2 of the Impugned Order the Ld. Adjudicating Authority has also come to the conclusion that it was the Benami Transaction, which was indulged in by Shri Rameshwar Singh, the Appellant herein, as Benamidar and Shri Raj Kumar Agarwal as the Beneficial Owner. Paragraph 10.2 as being cited as follow:
“Further in Binapani Paul V/s Pratima Ghosh and other [(2007) 6 SCC 100], the Hon’ble Supreme Court has spelt out the following six circumstances which can be taken as a guide to determine the nature of benami transaction:
1. The source from which the purchase came;
2. The nature and possession of the property, after the purchase;
3. Motive, if any, for giving the transaction a, benami colour;
4. The position of parties and the relationship, if any, between the: claimant and the alleged benamidar;
5. The custody of the title deeds after the sale
6. The conduct of parties concerned in dealing with the property after the sale The undersigned has considered each point as narrated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as a guidance and the same is discussed as below:
1. The source from which the purchase came
In this case the amount for purchase has been provided by Shri Rajkumar Agarwal. Without this aided amount Shri Rameshwar Singh would not have been able to purchase the said property as he has no capacity or source for such purchase.
2. The nature and possession of the property, after the purchase
The nature of property is agricultural as on date but can be converted in commercial as its proximity to National Highway. The investment has been made by the beneficial owners for future use of the said land. As the possession of the land is concerned, it is not with the Benamidar as stated by him in his statement dated 10.05.2018. The possession of property is with Beneficial Owner Shri Raj Kumar Agarwal.
3. Motive, if any, for giving the transaction a benami colour
The motive for purchase of said land has been well stated by Shri Rameshwar Singh is for future use. The land was first purchased in the name of Shri Dhaneshwar Singh and the Beneficial Owner has been profited for Rs. 64 Lakh when the part of land has been acquired by NHAI. The balance of land has been secured for future use for its proximity to national highway.
4. The position of parties and the relationship, if any, between the claimant and the alleged benamidar
The position of the alleged Benamidar Shri Rameshwar Singh is of labourer as on date. Shri Rajkumar Agarwal, the alleged beneficial owner in this case came to know him through his childhood friend Shri Shashikant Raut Rai. Shri Shashikant Raut Rai lives in same village of Shri Rameshwar Singh. In connivance with his friend Shri Shashikant Raut Rai has abated Shri Rajkumar Agarwal in the said conspiracy.
5. The custody of the title deeds after the sale As stated by Shri Rameshwar Singh, the custody of the sale deed is with Rajkumar Agarwal.
6. The conduct of parties concerned in dealing with the property after the sale. As the investment has been made for future use and the property is lying idle, the conduct of parties has been very normal in this case. The alleged Benamidar Shri Rameshwar Singh is still working asl labour. Shri Rajkumar Agarwal is doing business at Sakti.”
14. We observe that vide Order dated 15.12.2022 this Appeal No. FPA-PBPT-1041/RP/2020 along with the Appeal No. FPA-PBPT- 1040/RP/2020 filed by Shri Raj Kumar Agarwal were dismissed for non-prosecution by the Appellants. While the Appeal filed by the Shri Rameshwar Singh was restored on the Application filed by the Appellant, the Appeal filed by Shri Raj Kumar Agarwal was thereafter not pursued. The evidences both documentary and oral clearly bring out the close nexus between the Appellant and Shri Raj Kumar Agarwal. The statement of the Appellant that he signed the sale deed at the behest of Shri Raj Kumar Agarwal for which he was paid Rs. 10,000/-. The denial by Shri Raj Kumar Agarwal of him knowing the Appellant has been refuted on the basis of corroborative evidences. The subsequent contention of the Appellant that the land was purchased from his own funds bequeathed from his father having not been supported by any documentary evidence and in the face of earlier statement cannot be accepted.
15. In view of the aforementioned discussions and analysis, we dismiss the Appeal No. FPA-PBPT-1041/RP/2020 filed by Shri Rameshwar Singh. Applications pending, if any, are disposed of accordingly.
