ABDUR RASHID Vs. MD. KAMAL UDDIN MASTER
SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH
Md. Kamal Uddin Master
Click here to view full judgement.
MD.TAFAZZUL ISLAM,J. -
(1.) This petition for leave to appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 5.11.2007 of the High Court Division passed in Civil Revision No.3516 of 2002 discharging the Rule.
(2.) Facts, in brief, are that the petitioners and others filed Miscellaneous Case No.5 of 1996 in the Court of Assistant Judge, Daulatkhan, Bhola on 5.3.1996 seeking pre-emption under section 96 of the State Acquisition and Tenancy Act 1950 on the averments that pre-emptee respondents Nos. 6 and 7 by judgment and decree dated 19.04.1995 passed in Title Suit No.134 of 1990 became owners and possessors of 4.97 acres of land and they by kabala dated 31.12.95 sold .47 decimals of land to the respondent Nos.1 and 8 and on the same day they also transferred 24 decimals of land to the respondent No.3 and .40 decimals of land to the respondents Nos.4 and 5 and that the pre-emptors, who are the co-sharers of the case land did not get any notice of the said transfers and the pre-emptees executed the registered the kabala in collusion with each other secretly and the respondent Nos.2-5 are strangers to the case land.
(3.) The respondents No.1 contested the case by filing written objection contending that the preemptors, including the petitioners and respondent Nos. 6, 7 and 8, are co-sharers in the case land and the preemptors, inspite of offer, refused to purchase 1.12 acres of land owned by the respondent Nos.6 and 7 and thereafter the case land was purchased by the respondent Nos. 2-5 and possession of the case land was delivered to them within the knowledge, presence and consent of the pre-emptors petitioners and that subsequently for want of money, when pre-emptee respondent Nos.2-5 wanted to sell their portion in the case land to the respondent No.1, the preemptors inspite of offer, again refused to purchase it and then the respondent No.1, on 4.8.1996, purchased 1.08 acres of land and all those transfers were executed within the knowledge of the pre-emptors. The trial Court, after hearing, by the judgment and order dated 19.9.2000 allowed pre-emption. The pre-emptee opposite party No.7, the present respondent No.1, then preferred Miscellaneous Appeal No.37 of 2000 and the learned Joint District Judge, First Court, Bhola, after hearing, by judgment and order dated 12.6.2002 allowed the appeal. As against that the pre-emptor petitioners moved the High Court Division and obtained Rule in Civil Revision No.3516 of 2002 and the High Court Division, after hearing, discharged the Rule.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.