ABDUL GAFUR Vs. MARIOM BIBI
LAWS(BANG)-2009-3-1
SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH
Decided on March 12,2009

ABDUL GAFUR Appellant
VERSUS
Mariom Bibi Respondents

JUDGEMENT

MD.ABDUL MATIN,J. - (1.) This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 05.12.2007 passed by the High Court Division in Civil Revision No. 4099 of 1997 discharging the Rule and thereby affirming the judgment and decree dated 11.06.1997 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 1st Court, Brahmanbaria in Title Appeal No.78 of 1995 reversing the judgment and decree dated 18.01.1996 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, 1st Court, Brahmanbaria in Title Suit No.03 of 1993.
(2.) The facts, in short, are that the predecessor of the petitioner, Abdul Gafur as plaintiff instituted Title Suit No. 3 of 1993 impleading the principal respondent Nos.1-10 and others as defendants for declaration of title, confirmation of possession and also for permanent injunction in respect of 2nd schedule land within the 1st schedule property of the plaint asserting, inter alia, that the suit schedule land originally belonged to Koilash Chandra Dey and others, that by amicable partition Alangamohan Deb Nath became the absolute owner of the suit schedule land. Being owner-in-possession Alangamohand died leaving his wife Gongabanshi as his sole heir and as such while owning an possessing the suit land, exclusively, Gongabanshi sold the 2nd schedule land to the petitioner on 30.10.1962 and delivered physical possession but because of Sudden death of Gonga Bangshi registration of the sale deed could not be completed. Besides, in the body of sale deed although khatian number was omitted and the area was written 2.99 acres in place of 3.99 acres but in the schedule of the kabala itself the number of khatian and the area of 2nd schedule land was correctly and properly mentioned.
(3.) Being the owner-in-possession by purchase the petitioner has been possessing the suit land peacefully and continuously since 30.10.1962 within the knowledge of all concerned. Some portion of the 2nd schedule land is being used for agricultural purpose by the petitioner after constructing deep tube well thereon. In other portion, the petitioner has dug a pond and has been rearing fishes. Besides, some portions of the suit schedule land are being used as graveyard. Moreover, the petitioner also sold some land to defendant Nos. 23-29 and handed over possessing to them who constructed pucca houses and other structures and have been residing therein with the members of their family.;


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