ANUWARUL ISLAM Vs. ABDUL LATIF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 6 in Title Suit No. 70/1992 is directed against the judgment and decree dated 5.3.2001 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) (now Civil Judge), Dhubri in Title Appeal No. 9/1999, dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs by reversing the judgment and decree dated 1.3.1999 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 2 (now Munsiff No. 2), Dhubri in the aforesaid suit.

(2.) THE present appellants along with Ajiron Bewa instituted the aforesaid suit against the present respondent as defendant praying for a decree declaring the sale deed No. 122/1986 dated 5.2.1986 executed in favour of the defendant is forged and fraudulent and also for declaring the right, title and interest of the plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 6 in respect of the Schedule 'C' land measuring 2 bighas 3 kathas, in respect of which land the sale deed dated 5.2.1986 was executed, contending inter alia that the land measuring 7 bighas 4 kathas 2 lechas under Dag No. 540 of Khatian No. 225 in village Kakripara Part I under Circle Mankachar in the district of Dhubri originally belonged to Pannaullah, on whose death the plaintiff Nos. 1 to 6's father Goherul Haque and Ajiron Bewa inherited the said property being his son and daughter. It has also been pleaded that after the death of Goherul Haque the plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 6 being the sons and daughter have jointly inherited the share of Goherul Haque. It is also the pleaded case of the plaintiffs in the plaint that there was amicable partition amongst the heirs and the land described in Schedule 'B' measuring 5 bighas 1 katha 1 lecha fell in the share of the plaintiff Nos. 1 to 6, which included the land measuring 2 bighas 3 kathas described in Schedule 'C', which was purportedly transferred by the plaintiff No. 7 in favour of the defendant by executing the sale deed dated 5.2.1986. According to the plaintiffs since the plaintiff No. 7 has no right, title and interest in respect of Schedule 'C' land she cannot transfer the same and in fact she never executed such sale deed which has been created by the defendant fraudulently.

(3.) DURING the pendency of the suit the plaintiff No. 7 died and though an application for bringing the legal heirs on record, apart from the defendant, was filed together with the application for setting aside the abatement of the suit in so far as the plaintiff No. 7 is concerned, the same, however, has been rejected and as such the plaintiff No. 7's name was struck of from the list of the plaintiffs in the suit.