- (1.) Being unsuccessful in connection with the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 filed in Title Suit No. 101 of 2012 and Misc. Appeal No. 31 of 2014, the plaintiff/petitioner has come before this Court with a prayer to set aside the impugned orders.
(2.) In the memo of appeal the petitioner contended that the learned Court below failed to appreciate the factual aspects of this case in its proper perspective. According to them one Asiruddin, the common ancestor got the properties by virtue of a registered deed of partition bearing No. 1772/1948 and after his death the suit property devolved upon his two wives Zabedan Bibi and Arzan Bibi and son Mantajuddin (the present defendant No. 1) and two daughters Jaynab Bibi and Rabeya. The said Rabeya died leaving behind her five sons of which one Murshed was the eldest son. After the death of Murshed his legal heirs i.e. plaintiff Nos. 1 to 4 and two daughters, namely, Manuwara and Hasna became the cosharers. Hasna died leaving behind Islamuddin and one daughter Rabeya Bibi, who are plaintiff Nos. 6 and 7. Manuwara Bibi is the plaintiff No. 5. Jaynab Bibi is the daughter of second wife of Asiruddin i.e. Arzan. That Jaynab Bibi died leaving proforma defendant Nos. 7 to 13 as her heirs. Genealogical tree is not disputed by the parties.
(3.) According to the plaintiff/petitioner when they feel difficulty to posses the suit property jointly, they have requested defendant No. 1 to make partition of the suit property. This time the defendant/opposite party (Mantaj Uddin) discloses that he is the absolute owner of the suit property on the strength of the deed of gift executed by the heirs of Asiruddin. The plaintiff stated that deed of gift was executed on 13.06.1981. It is the further case of the plaintiff/petitioner, that alleged deed of gift executed by Rabeya, Jaynab Bibi and Arzan had been executed by practicing fraud. They have specifically stated that Rabeya, Jaynab Bibi and Arzan were insane at the material point of time and they were under medical treatment. So the said deed cannot be treated as a sacrosanct one.;