KAMRUNNESSA NILUFAR Vs. MAHMUDUL FARUQUE
LAWS(BANG)-2009-2-8
SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH
Decided on February 02,2009

Kamrunnessa Nilufar Appellant
VERSUS
Mahmudul Faruque Respondents

JUDGEMENT

MD.JOYNUL ABEDIN, J. - (1.) This petition for leave to appeal at the instance of the plaintiffs is directed against the judgment and order dated 1-10-2007 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court Division in First Miscellaneous Appeal No. 258 of 2007 dismissing the appeal.
(2.) The short fact is that the petitioners as plaintiff filed the said Title Suit No. 217 of 2006 against the defendant respondents claiming a saham of 1/5 share in schedule 'Ka' land and for declaration that three registered documents, one being a bainapatra fully described in schedule 'Kha' and two kabala deeds as fully described in schedule 'Ga' to the plaint, are all illegal, collusive and not binding on them and also for khas possession of their saham alleging, inter alia, that their mother Abeda Khatun alias Waleda Khatun purchased the schedule 'Ka' land on 28-4-1952 by registered Deed No. 2981 and during SA Survey it was recorded in her name in SA Plot No. 254 under SA Khatian No. 186 and the same has also been recorded in RS Plot No. 415 under the RS Khatian No. 171. The said Abeda Khatun constructed a three-storied building on the said land known as No. 1/A, Fakirapool, DIT Extension Road. While she was enjoying peaceful right, title and possession in the said land she died leaving behind 3(three) sons, i.e., the defendant Nos.1-3 and four daughters i.e., the two plaintiffs and the defendant Nos. 6-7. In place of their mother all her sons and daughters have been enjoying the ejmali right, title and possession of the same through the tenants and the defendant No. 1, the eldest brother of the plaintiffs was entrusted with the management of the same which he would discharge through the appointed Manager and they would share the rent according to their respective shares. The plaintiffs thereafter demanded partition by metes and bounds for several times lastly on 30-6-2006 but the defendants refused. On the contrary the plaintiffs found that the defendants in collaboration with each other made some fraudulent paper transactions in favour of the defendant No. 4 with a view to depriving them from their inheritance.
(3.) Thereafter on 12-9-2006, the plaintiffs filed an application for temporary injunction restraining the defendant No. 5 from collecting rent to the extent of 1/5 share from the tenants and also from disturbing the plaintiffs from collecting rent from the tenants to the extent of their 1/5 share and from changing nature and character of the ejmali property by demolishing partly or fully the three-storied building constructed by their mother and of causing damage to the building which is occupied by the tenants.;


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