DINESH CHANDRA DEB Vs. DULAL CHANDRA KARMAKAR
SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH
Dinesh Chandra Deb
Dulal Chandra Karmakar
Click here to view full judgement.
SYED MAHMUD HOSSAIN,J. -
(1.) This Rule is directed against order Nos.28 and 29 dated 24-6-1992 and 6-7-1992 respectively by the learned Senior Assistant Judge, 2nd Additional Assistant Judge Court, Sadar, Noakhali allowing comparison of disputed document against which another suit is brought with plaintiffs signature disputed in the suit, for obtaining opinion of the Handwriting Expert in Title Suit No. 461 of 1990
(2.) The petitioner as plaintiff instituted Title Suit No.461 of 1990 in the Court of Assistant Judge, Sadar, Noakhali for a declaration that the decree dated 24-2-1983 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Sadar, Noakhali in Title Suit No.106 of 1982 in terms of solenama was forged, fraudulent and inoperative.
(3.) The plaintiffs Case in short, is that his maternal grandmother, Niroda Sundari, had been the owner of 0.26 acre of land of plot No. 30 measuring an area of 0.80 acre of land. She gifted 0.14 acre of land to the plaintiff by the registered deed of gift dated 12-9-1970 and thereafter died, leaving behind the plaintiffs mother as her only heir Kali Prasanna, and Han Prasanna (plaintiffs father) were the owners in possession of plot No. 28 of khatian No. 43 measuring an area of 1.17 acres of land. Having executed a Power of Attorney on 18- 8-1952 in favour of his brother, Han Prasanna, Kali Prasanna left for India, after the death of plaintiffs father Han Prasanna, the plaintiff became the owner in possession of the entire property. Biswanath Karmaker, father of defendant Nos. 1-6, filed Title Suit No.160 of 1982 in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Noakhali where plaintiffs uncle Kali Prasanna, maternal grandmother, Niroda Sundari and the plaintiff were impleaded as defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 respectively. At the time of filing of the suit the plaintiffs father Han Prasanna who died on 6- 10-1984 was alive. No summons or notices were at all served upon the defendants. It appeared that the plaintiff who was defendant No.3 in the said suit was alleged to have executed a solenama on 29- 1-1983. As a matter of fact, he neither executed the solenama nor appointed any Advocate to file such solenama. The decree on the basis of the said solenama was obtained by practicing fraud upon the court. Hence the suit.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.