MOULVI ABDUL QUDUS Vs. BANGLADESH
SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH
Moulvi Abdul Qudus
Click here to view full judgement.
MD.TAFAZZUL ISLAM, J. -
(1.) This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 13.11.2007 of the High Court Division passed in Civil Revision No.348 of 1996 discharging the Rule and thereby affirming the judgment and decree dated 6.11.1995 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, 2nd Court, Feni, in Title Appeal (Civil Appeal) No.90 of 1991 allowing the appeal reversing those dated 30.10.1991 passed by the Senior Assistant Judge, Feni, in Title Suit No.11 of 1990 decreeing the suit.
(2.) Facts, in brief, are that the petitioner, as plaintiffs filed the above suit stating that Rani Harshamukhi Singha, land lady of Bhulua of the Pargan State under Touzi No.5, Noakhali Collectorate, police station Daganbhuiyan District-Feni was in possession of 168 decimal of land under Karimpur Mouza including 50 decimal of land in suit recorded previously in Khatian No.1 of Plot No.4237 under Jagatpur Mouza of the previously District Noakhali at present Feni and while as owner in khas leased out the same to one Nurul Huq Meah and Basirullah by registered kabuliyat dated 25.6.1951, Basirullah gifted his portion of land to his son Oziullah by a heba deed on 6.6.1963. Thereafter Oziullah and said Nurul Huq transferred the suit land to the plaintiff petitioner by a sale deed dated 16.7.1969 and gave possession to them. But during the past MROR survey the suit land was mistakenly recorded in the khas Khatian No.1. The plaintiff-petitioner first came to know about the wrong record of his land on 4.11.1990 when he went to the Tahsil Office for payment of the rent of the land, hence the suit he instituted on 30.1.1990. The defendant government contested the suit by filing a written statement denying the material allegations stating inter alia that the suit is not maintainable in the present from; the suit is barred by limitation and misjoinder of parties. The suit land accreted to the khas land of the land lady, that the suit land was under water for more than 20 years, the suit land recorded under plot Nos.4-37 measuring 50 decimal being the part and parcel of 208 decimal of land was, accreted land from the recess of the river, the land was covered by the river and government is the sole owner and possessor of the land. The predecessor of interest of the plaintiff paid no rent and were not recognized as tenant under the Government. The MROR khatian was correctly recorded in the name of the defendant and as such the suit should be dismissed. The suit land having accreted from recess of the river as addition to the khas land of the previous landlord the plaintiff created some forged deeds and filed the instant suit to grab the suit land. The trial Court after hearing, by judgment and decree dated 30.10.1991 decreed the suit. The defendant then preferred Civil Appeal No. 90 of 1991 before the District Judge, Feni and the learned Subordinate Judge, after hearing, allowed the appeal the petitioner then moved the High Court Division and obtained Rule in Civil Revision No.248 of 1996 and after hearing the High Court Division discharged the Rule.
(3.) We have heard the learned advocate and perused the impugned judgment and order of the High Court Division and also other connected papers.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.