BANGLADESH Vs. ABDUS SOBHAN TALUKDER
LAWS(BANG)-1989-6-3
SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH
Decided on June 05,1989

Bangladesh Appellant
VERSUS
Abdus Sobhan Talukder Respondents

JUDGEMENT

A.T.M.AFZAL J. - (1.) This appeal by leave at the instance of respondent Nos. 3-5 (defendants) (transposed to the category of petitioners in the leave petition) arises out of judgment and order dated 18 February 1987 passed by a Single Judge of the High Court Division, Rangpur Bench in revision decreeing O.C. Suit No. 335 of 1969 after setting aside the judgment and decree of the courts below.
(2.) Plaintiff-respondent (No.1) brought the said suit for specific performance of contract in the Second Court of Assistant Judge, Serajganj alleging, inter alia, that defendant No.1 (respondent No. 2 herein) contracted to sell the suit land to him for a consideration of Tk. 999/- and on receipt of the entire consideration executed kabala (Ext. 1) on 29.4.63. Then income tax clearance certificate was obtained on 8.2.64 but the kabala was not registered as defendant No. 1 was away from his house and soon thereafter the East Pakistan Disturbed Persons (Rehabilitation) Ordinance 1964 was promulgated. Defendant No.1 being a member of the minority community was required to take permission under the said Ordinance for making transfer and being requested by the plaintiff to obtain the same, he refused raising this or that plea. Plaintiff then himself filed petition to the Board of Revenue for permission for registration of the kabala. On 2.4.69 he was intimated by the Board of Revenue that no permission was necessary as the Ordinance lost its force in the meantime. Defendant No. 1 having already left for India the suit was filed on 24.12.69 upon assertion that the cause of action arose on aforesaid 2.4.69.
(3.) Defendant No.2 (petitioner No. 2 in the leave petition) and defendants 3-5 (appellants) filed separate written statements but the suit was contested by the appellants only. Their case, inter alia, is that defendant No. 1 left for India in the last part of March 1964, that he never possessed the suit land, that the suit land was duly declared enemy property and they took lease of the same from the Assistant Custodian, Pabna. It was asserted that the suit was barred by limitation.;


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