Bench:

Mr. Justice Bhishmadev Chakrabortty And

Mr. Justice Md. Akhtaruzzaman

First Appeal No.70 of 1999

Rakesh Chandra Nath being dead his heirs:

1(a) Rani Bala Nath and others ...... appellants -Versus-

Rafiqul Islam and others ...... respondents

Mr. Sudipta Arjun with Mr. Chanchal Kumar Biswas, Mr. Bidhayok Sarker and Mr. Sougata Guha, Advocates ...... for the appellants

Mr. Belayet Hussain with Mr. Mohammad Ali, Advocates ...... for the respondents 12(b)(i)(j) and 13

Judgment on 14.01.2024

Bhishmadev Chakrabortty, J.

This appeal, at the instance of the plaintiffs, is directed against the judgment and decree of the then Subordinate Judge and Artha Rin Adalat, Sylhet passed on 01.06.1998 in Title Suit No.113 of 1995 dismissing the suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession.

The plaintiffs brought the suit on 30.07.1992 stating facts that the suit land originally belonged to the predecessors of the plaintiffs Golak Nath and Tilak Nath. Tilak Nath died leaving behind his brother Golak Nath and he became the owner of the total land. He died leaving behind his two sons Charitra Nath and Gopi Nath as heirs. Subsequently, Gopi Nath sold his 8 annas share to his daughter Chapala Bala through kabala dated 19.06.1948. Charitra Nath died leaving behind his wife Amlo Bala and son Raj Kumar Nath. Chapala Bala sold her share to Amlo and Raj Kumar through registered kabala

dated 25.09.1957. In this way they became owner of 16 annas share of the schedule land. The land of schedule 2 was erroneously recorded in the name of the predecessors of defendants 9-13, namely, Hazi Maram Ullah and others and for that reason Amlo Bala and Raj Kumar instituted Title Suit No.362 of 1967 in the Court of Joint District Judge (the then Subordinate Judge), Sylhet which was subsequently withdrawn for formal defects. The defendants of the aforesaid suit forcefully dispossessed the predecessor of the plaintiffs from schedule 1 suit land. The predecessors of the plaintiffs then instituted Title Suit No.147 of 1969 in the Court of the then Second Subordinate Judge, Sylhet for declaration of title and recovery of possession in respect of schedule 1 and for declaration of title and confirmation of possession for schedule 2 land. In that suit the predecessors of defendants 9-13 of this suit as defendants 1-4 filed written statements and claimed the land of schedule 2 while defendant 5 Tara Miah claimed land of schedule 1. To prove the cases both the parties led evidence therein. The trial Court after considering evidence and other materials on record decreed the suit in part on 30.09.1974 declaring plaintiffs’ title and confirmation of possession in respect of schedule 2 land but the suit was dismissed, so far it was related to schedule 1 of the plaint. Defendants 1-4 of that suit then preferred Title Appeal No.57 of 1975 before the District Judge, Sylhet. However, the Additional District Judge, Sylhet after hearing allowed the appeal by its judgment and decree dated 30.07.1976 and consequently the original suit was

dismissed as a whole. The plaintiffs of that suit then preferred Second Appeal No.229 of 1978 before this Court and a Bench of this Division by its judgment and decree passed on 01.11.1983 allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate Court. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree the defendants moved to the Appellate Division in Civil Appeal No.57 of 1985. The Appellate Division after hearing by its judgment and decree passed on 08.01.1991 dismissed the appeal and finally declared title of the plaintiffs’ in respect of schedule 2 land and also confirmed their possession thereon. After passing the judgment by the Appellate Division, defendants 1-8 herein with the assistance of defendants 9- 13, who were the defendants 1-4 of the previous suit, forcibly dispossessed these plaintiffs from schedule 2 land and erected several bamboo made huts therein. The present plaintiffs, who are the heirs of the