SHAHIN MIA Vs. PARUL BEGUM WIFE OF IBRAHIM
LAWS(BANG)-2009-12-3
SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH
Decided on December 17,2009

Shahin Mia Appellant
VERSUS
Parul Begum Wife Of Ibrahim Respondents

JUDGEMENT

B.K.DAS,J. - (1.) This application for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 11.5.09 of a learned Single Judge of the High Court Division making the rule being Civil Revision No. 157 of 2003 absolute and thereby setting aside the judgment and decree of the courts below and decreeing the suit in favour of the plaintiff.
(2.) The respondent Nos.1-8 as plaintiffs instituted Title Suit No. 18 of 1997 in the court of Senior Assistant Judge, Kasba, Brahmanbaria, impleading the present petitioner as defendants and respondent Nos.9-22 as other defendant and respondent No.23 as Proforma defendant, praying for declaration of title to the suit land and for recovery of Khas possession therein alleging, inter alia, that the suit plot No. 638 and 639 along with on non suited plot no. 643 measuring 39 decimals of land originally belonged to Samena Bibi which was finally published in her name in C.S. Khatian and that the said Samena Bibi died leaving behind her only daughter Amena Khatun and thereafter Amena Khatun died leaving behind her daughter Malekernessa alias Melaka. While Melaka was owning and possessing the said plots she transferred the entire land of plot No. 643 by executing and registering deed of sale No.3219 dated 26.4.62 and 07 decimals of land from the suit plots by executing and registering another deed of sale bearing No. 4967 dated 6.12.72 to the plaintiff No. 4 Abdul Sobhan alias Sobhan Miah. After purchase he mutated his name and got Jama separated in separation case No. 22483-84 by creating a separate Khatian No. 982 and took a loan from the Janata Bank, Brahmanbaria branch by mortgaging the said 07 decimals of land. Thereafter Maleka Begum died leaving behind one son Abdul Hossain, father of plaintiff No. 5, who died leaving behind plaintiff Nos. 3-5 as his sons and daughter and thus the plaintiff Nos. 1-4 became the owners of .27 decimals of land in the suit plot by way of purchase and by inheritance. It is further stated that in S.A. operation the suit property along with the property of plot No.643 has been wrongly recorded in the name of one Aderjaman and other, predecessors of the defendants in khatian No.117. The plaintiff learnt about the wrong record in the S.A. khatian on the basis of so-called partition suit No.172 of 1929. The defendant no. 5 with the help of other defendants forcibly entered into the land of plot No. 638 on 30.9.96 and constructed two dochala tin shed and 3 chouchala tin shed defying the objection raised by plaintiff No.3.
(3.) The defendant no. 5 contested the suit by filing a written statement contending, inter alia, that the suit is barred by limitation and that the suit plot no. 638 and 639 along with non suited plot no. 643 measuring an area of .39 decimals of land belonged to Samena Bibi and her name was rightly recorded in C.S. Khatian. Samena Khatun subsequently defaulted to pay rents and the Talukder was going to file a suit for realization of rent when Samena Bibi executed Istafanama deed dated 06.06.1920 and surrendered the property in favour of the landlord who settled the property to Munshi Mia son of Nawaj Ali on 10.09.1921 and thus Munshi Sheikh became the sole owner of the land of the said 3 plots and has been in possession of the said land and prayed for dismissal of the suit.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.