Bench:

Mr. Justice Bhishmadev Chakrabortty

Civil Revision No. 1573 of 2012

Md. Abdul Jabbar and another

......petitioners -Versus-

Fatema Khatun and others.

......opposite parties

Mr. SK. Sharifuddin, Advocate

...... for the petitioners

Mr. Ali Imam Khaled Rahim with

Mr. Indrajit Kumar Moulick, Advocates

...... for opposite parties 1-10

Judgment on 10.06.2024

The Rule was issued calling upon the plaintiff-opposite parties to show cause as to why the judgment and decree of the District Judge, Jhenaidah passed on 08.03.2012 in Title Appeal No.97 of 2011 allowing the appeal reversing the judgment and decree of the Senior Assistant Judge, Sadar, Jhenaidah passed on 30.06.2011 in Title Suit No.200 of 2004 dismissing the suit should not be 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 the land described in schedule 2 of the plaint covered by the deed of kabalas dated 18.06.2003, 23.05.2004, 21.07.2004 and 04.08.2004 originally belonged to Khorshed Ali Sheikh. During his possession and enjoyment he erected a house in plot 208 for plaintiff 3, his daughter. Plaintiff 3 has been residing therein. Plaintiffs 6-9 also erected a house in the compact block comprising of plots 91, 88,

192 and 189. After Kharshed Ali’s death plaintiffs 6-9 have been residing therein. During life time Khorshed used to enjoy the said land with other lands on payment of rent to the concerned. Before his death he suffered for 5-6 months from old age diseases. He died on 27.09.2004 leaving behind plaintiffs 1-10 and defendant 2 as heirs. The plaintiffs have been maintaining possession in the suit land covered by the disputed documents within the knowledge of all concerned. Defendant 1 suddenly claimed the suit land on 30.09.2004 by virtue of the kabalas described in schedule 1 to the plaint. The plaintiffs got astonished and asked defendant 1 to show the documents. He then supplied them the photostat copies of those deeds. On perusal of the photo copies of the deeds the plaintiffs came to learn that those shown to have been executed and registered by Khorshed but he did never do it. Plaintiffs then arranged a salish in presence of the local elites but defendant 1 did not appear in the sitting. It was discussed in the salish that Khorshed was a jotder and he had financial ability and there could be no reason for him to sell the land. Before his death he told some persons that he did not transfer any land except .05 acres to each of his daughters. Plaintiffs procured certified copies of the disputed kabalas dated 10.10.2004 and came to learn that the land belonged to predecessor of the plaintiffs 3-8 also been included in the deeds. The thumb impressions put in the alleged deeds are forged. Defendant 1 has no possession in the land. He earlier forged a cheque. The plaintiffs could not find some documents of Khorshed after his death and they suspected that defendant 1 had stolen those. Taking advantage of Khorshed’s son-in-law he created the documents by false personation. The land of the documents appertains plots 188, 192, 194 and 195 and they are in possession of a compact block of plots 1170, 1172 and 1173 of Pabahati Mouza. Hence, the suit for declaration that the disputed kabalas are forged, collusive, inoperative, illegal, without any consideration and not binding upon the plaintiffs.

Defendants 1 and 2 contested the suit by filing written statement denying the statements made in the plaint. They further contended that Khorshed Ali had 2 (two) wives. He had 6 (six) daughters of his first wife. Plaintiff 10 is his second wife. Defendant 2 is the daughter of plaintiff 10. Khorshed loved defendant 2, his youngest daughter very much. Having been pleased with the behavior of defendant 1 he gave defendant 2 marriage with him 4 years ago. Khorshed was shocked at the early death of his only son Ekabbor. At that time defendant 1 looked after him. Khorshed used to treat hi