LAW FOR ALL

respondent No.1 has no right to claim ownership over the suit property on the ground of adverse possession by taking a plea of sham transaction. This plea of the respondent is not only prohibited by the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, but makes the appellants absolute owner.; this appeal deserves to be dismissed as the appellants have suppressed the material fact of rejection of the earlier SLP filed by Surinder Nath Kapoor (pro forma respondent no.4 herein) cannot be accepted as the same is untenable. Rejection of the said SLP does not bind the present appellants in any manner whatsoever, as they were not party to the same.; the appellants failed to get the mutation of entries of the suit land incorporated in record shows that there was no intention on their part to act upon the contents of the two sale deeds, cannot be accepted as mere mutation of entries does not confer title ;The respondent cannot claim to have acquired title over the suit property by pleading adverse possession only in the absence of the name of the appellants in the revenue records.