Bench:

Mr. Justice Bhishmadev Chakrabortty

Civil Revision No. 3118 of 2017

Md. Hemayet Uddin ..... petitioner

-Versus-

Md. Mosharaf Hossain (Nanu Mia) and others

..... opposite parties

Mr. Sherder Abul Hossain with

Mr. Md. Ismail Hossain, Advocates

..... for the petitioner

Mr. Muhammad Ashraf Ali with

Mr. Md. Shahadat Alam, Advocates

..... for the opposite parties

Judgment on 29.07.2024

This rule at the instance of defendant 1 was issued calling upon the plaintiff opposite parties to show cause as to why the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Court No. 2, Bagerhat passed on 13.06.2017 in Title Appeal No. 64 of 2011 dismissing the appeal affirming the judgment and decree of the Assistant Judge, Chitalmari, Bagerhat passed on 29.03.2011 in Title Suit No. 55 of 2002 decreeing the suit should not set aside and/or such other or further order or orders passed to this Court may seem fit and proper .

The plaint case, in brief, is that land measuring .05 acres of SA khatian 29 and .02 acres of SA khatian 136 of Fulmoni mouja was owned, held and possessed by Makbular Mir. He died leaving behind 4 sons and 2 daughters and consequently each of the son got .0140 acres while each daughter got .007 acres. The plaintiffs thus got .0280

acres in their share. Defendant 1 claimed the suit land on 03.05.2002 on the strength of a deed of heba-beel-awaj from his father dated 24.07.1990. Makbular Mir became seriously ill in 1990. He opted to gift his land to all of his sons. Accordingly all of them went to the Sub-registry office on 24.07.1990. After execution of the deed the plaintiffs put their signature on it and accordingly it was registered but subsequently on reading of the contents of the deed they came to learn that defendant 1 wrote his name as sole donee in the deed and the plaintiffs were shown to have been attesting witness there. Defendant 1 then cancelled the ewaz deed on the same day through another registered deed. The plaintiffs used to possess the land through defendant 1 but he claimed the suit land on 03.05.2002 disclosing that he got it through aforesaid heba-beel-awaz. Hence the suit for declaration that the heba-beel- awaz deed dated 24.07.1990 in respect of ‘kha’ schedule land is collusive, fraudulent, illegal and also for partition of the suit land described in the schedule to the plaint.

Defendant 1 contested the suit by filing written statement. In the written statement he denied the statements made in the plaint and further contended that the Sonali Bank Ltd opened a branch over the suit building in 1980 and defendant 1 used to serve therein. The father of the plaintiffs and defendant at his free will transferred the land to this defendant on 28.07.1990 through the heba-beele-awaz. Thereafter, the repaired the building situated therein and renewed the lease agreement with the bank. The price of the land has been increased and the plaintiffs on illegal lust instituted the instant suit. At the pressure of the plaintiffs the defendant was compelled to put his signature on the cancelation deed. Since the deed of heba-beel-awaz was executed and registered at the free will of Makbular Mir, the instant suit would be dismissed.

Defendants 2 and 4 also contested the suit by filing written statement. In the written statement they denied the fact of the pliant and further contended that their father transferred land to defendant 1 through the heba-beel-awaz at his free will. The plaintiffs threatened defendant 1 and compelled him to execute and register the deed of cancelation and hence the suit would be dismissed.

Defendants 3(Ka)-3(Ja) that, the heirs of one of the daughter of Mokbular Mir also appeared in the suit and claimed saham to extent of .007 acres.

Defendant 6 government filed written statement. In the written statement they stated that .02 acres of land in plot 202 of SA khatian 1 belongs to the government. In SA khatian 29 there is no plot as 202. Sin