Decided on March 15,2009

Moulvi Abdul Wadud Chowdhury Appellant
Abdul Motaleb Chowdhury Respondents


SHAH ABU NAYEEM MOMINUR RAHMAN,J. - (1.) These three applications filed under Article 103 of the Constitution praying for leave to prefer appeals, being registered as C.P.L.A. Nos. 513, 517 and 518, against the common judgment and order dated 5.12.2007, by which the Rules issued in Civil Revision Nos. 4634/97, 4633/97 and 4635/97 respectively, were disposed of discharging the rules issued calling in question the common judgment and order passed in disposing of three Miscellaneous Cases filed by the same petitioner under section 96 of the State Acquisition and Tenancy Act for pre-emption of lands sold out by the same vendor opposite party vide three separate sale deeds, duly registered under the Registration Act.
(2.) The facts relevant for the disposal of the cases in reference are that the opposite party No.2, being owner possessor of the lands described in the second schedule of the Misc. Case Nos. 76 of 1983, 77 of 1983 and 82 of 1983, sold out the same through three separate registered sale deeds dated 26.8.1982, and the consideration for each of the sale was fixed at Tk.1,000/- each, and the sale took place beyond the knowledge of the petitioner and that the petitioner is a recorded tenant of Khatian No.66, in which the case plot belongs, and further lie petitioner is also a co-sharer by purchase in the same khatian. The total lands sold vide said three sale deeds was 0.80 acres. The petitioner came to know about the sales definitely after obtaining the certified copy of the sale deeds on 24.1.1983 and 13.1.1983. The plaintiff deposited Tk.1000/- for each case for pre-emption being the deed value plus the compensation, in terms of Section 96 of the State Acquisition and Tenancy Act.
(3.) The opposite party No.1, being the purchaser of the case land, and the opposite party No.2, being the seller of the case land, entered appearance in all the three Misc Cases being 77/83, 78/83 and 82/83 and contested the same by filing written objections contending, amongst others, that though the transfer of the respective case land were made through. registered sale deeds but in fact the opposite party No.2 gifted the said lands to the opposite party No.1 inasmuch as they are real brothers and that the transfers were made without payment of any consideration money and the transfers were made through registered sale deeds in place of gift deeds on the advice of the scribe to avoid technicalities pointed out by the scribe and that the applicant is the wife of the cousin of the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 and they live in houses constructed side by side arid that the sale deeds were executed on 26.8.1982, 12.9.1982 and 21.12.1982 and roistered on 26.8.1982. 12.9.1982 and 22.12.1982 respectively and possession of case lands were delivered accordingly. The opposite party No. 1 being away from home, his employee Nur Ahammed Khan accepted the delivery of possession on his behalf, and that the market value of the lands covered by three sale deeds at the relevant time was around Tk.19,000/- but there was no payment of any consideration money against the sales and for the purpose of registration, the total value of the case land, covered by three sale deeds, has been shown at Tk. 3000/-, and that the opposite party No.1, on getting delivery of possession of the suit land invested Tk. 10,000/- in developing the case land in filling up with earth" and that the petitioner herself did not file the pre-emption cases voluntarily but filed the cases at the instance of her sons and that she herself did not deposited the required money in Court.;

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