Bench:

Mr. Justice Bhishmadev Chakrabortty

Civil Revision No.10067 of 1991

[Civil Revision No.05 of 1988 (Sylhet)]

with

CR No.10123(R) 1991

Eshad Ullah Haji Talukdar being dead his heirs:

1(Ka) Ruhitar Rahman Talukar and 5 others ......petitioners

-Versus-

Satish Chandra Roy Chowdhury and others ......opposite parties

Mr. Chanchal Kumar Biswas, Advocate

...... for the petitioners

Ms. Rahima Khatun, Deputy Attorney General ...... for opposite party 6

Judgment on 14.03.2024

Since the Rule has arisen out of the aforesaid civil revision and the parties thereto are same, both are heard together and disposed of by this judgment.

At the instance of the plaintiffs this Rule was issued calling upon opposite party 6 to show cause as to why the judgment and decree of the then Subordinate Judge, Habiganj passed on 13.04.1987 in Title Appeal No.14 of 1984 dismissing the appeal affirming the judgment and decree of the then Munsif-in-charge, Court No.2, Habiganj passed on 29.11.1983 in Title Suit No.299 of 1981 dismissing the suit for specific performance of contract and permanent injunction should not be set aside and/or such other or further order or orders passed to this Court seem fit and proper.

The rule in CR No.10123(R) of 1991 was issued upon the Government to show cause as to why it should not be restrained from disturbing petitioners’ possession over the suit land and at the same time an ad interim order was passed to maintain status quo till disposal of the Rule.

The material facts for disposal of the Rule, in brief, are that the plaintiffs instituted the suit stating the facts that the suit land as detailed in the schedule to the plaint originally belonged to Satish Chandra Roy Chowdhury and Ashutosh Roy Chowdhury both sons of late Sharat Chandra Roy Chowdhury in equal shares. The SA khatian in respect of the suit land was prepared in their names. During their possession and enjoyment they offered the plaintiffs to purchase the suit land. The plaintiffs accepted the proposal and defendants 1 and 2 executed a bainapatra in favour of the plaintiffs at a consideration of Taka 3,000.00. Defendants 1 and 2 received earnest money of Taka 2,800.00 from the plaintiffs on 14.08.1977 BS corresponding to 30.11.1970 AD and executed a bainapatra to the plaintiffs. It was stipulated in the agreement that they would execute and register the kabala on receipt of the balance amount of Taka 200.00. At the time of execution of the bainapatra defendants 1 and 2 handed over possession of the scheduled land to the plaintiffs. Since then the plaintiffs have been possessing the land. The plaintiffs offered the balance amount to defendants 1 and 2 on 24.01.1978, 25.01.1974 and 22.07.1978 but the aforesaid defendants did not execute and register the kabala on various pretext. Lastly on 5th Bhadra 1388 BS corresponding to 22.08.1981 AD defendants 1 and 2 refused to execute and register the kabala. Defendants 3-5, the government officials had been trying to lease out the suit land disclosing that it has been enlisted as enemy property. Hence, the suit for specific performance of contract against defendants 1 and 2 and for permanent injunction against defendants 3-5.

Defendants 3-6 contested the suit by filing a set of written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. They further contended that the suit land measuring an area of 61.92 acres appertaining to plot 281 within mouja Roypur of police station- Baniaching was recorded in SA khatians 2, 3, 5 and 6 out of which khatians 2 and 5 were recorded in the names of Ashutosh Roy Chowdhury and Satish Chandra Roy Chowdhury. Khatians 3 and 6 were recorded in the names of Narendra Chandra Roy and others. Record of right for 55.18 acres was prepared in the names of Ashutosh Roy Chowdhury and Satish Chandra Roy Chowdhury. They did