IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH

HIGH COURT DIVISION

(CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

Present:

Mr. Justice Md. Badruzzaman.

And

Mr. Justice Sashanka Shekhar Sarkar

First Misc Appeal No. 55 of 2020.

With

Civil Rule No. 972 (F.M) of 2019

Zayeda Begum .

...Appellant. -Versus-

Md. Rafiqul Islam @ Fenu and others

....Respondents. Mr. Md. Dedar Alam Kallol, Advocate

… For the appellant

Mr. Surojit Bhattacharjee with

Ms. Farhana Siraj Ronnie, Advocates

… For the respondents

Heard on: 14.01.2024, 16.01.2024 and 04.02.2024. Judgment on: 05.02.2024.

Md. Badruzzaman, J:

This Appeal, at the instance of the plaintiff, is directed against an order dated 26.11.2019 passed by learned Joint District Judge, 2nd Court, Sylhet in Title Suit No. 21 of 2018 rejecting an application for temporary injunction filed under Order 39 rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Upon an application for injunction, this Court vide order dated 24.12.2019 issued a Rule calling upon the respondent-opposite parties to show cause as to why an order of injunction restraining the defendant-respondents from transferring the suit land to anybody else in any manner should not be passed and the parties were directed not to transferring the suit land for a period of 3 (three) months which was extended on 09.11.2021 for a further period of 2 (two) years with retrospective effect from the date of expiry. The Rule has been registered as Civil Rule No. 972 (F.M) of 2019.

Facts, relevant for the purpose of disposal of the appeal and the Rule, are that the appellant as plaintiff instituted Title Suit (Partition) No. 21 of 2018 against the respondents in 2nd Court of Joint District Judge, Sylhet for a decree of partition claiming one-ninth share out of the suit property with another decree of cancellation of registered gift deed dated 01.08.1978 being No. 30460 and registered gift deed dated 01.09.2004 being No. 13823 contending, inter alia, that total 1.67 acre land along with other land was owned and possessed by Md. Ekram Ullah by purchase and while he was owning and possessing said land made an oral will in favour of the plaintiff, defendant Nos. 1-5 and their mother Hazera Bibi. During his life time, Md. Ekram Ullah has been owning and possessing said land and he died on 04.01.1988 leaving behind the plaintiff, defendants and their mother Hazera Bibi and thereafter, Hazera Bibi died on 19.04.2006. After death of Hazera Bibi the plaintiff and defendants inherited the share of their mother in the suit property. According to the will and by way of inheritance from her mother the plaintiff got one-ninth share and defendant Nos. 1-5 got their respective shares in the suit property and the plaintiff was owning and possessing her share in ejmali with the defendants from her husband’s house. In last part of June, 2016 the plaintiff requested defendant No. 1 for making partition of the suit property whereupon a salish was held. In that salish defendant No. 1 made contradictory statements in regards entitlement of her share and in the last part of July, 2017 he refused to make partition of the suit property by metes and bounds. While the plaintiff was owning and possessing the suit

property in ejmali with her co-sharers came to learn that defendant Nos. 1-3 by showing two gift deeds dated 01.08.1978 and 01.09.2004 applied for mutation of their name and being learnt about the gift deeds she collected certified copies thereof and found that the defendants created gift deed No. 30460 dated 01.08.1978 by forging the signature of their father Md. Ekram Ullah. On the other hand, by forging signature of their mother Hazera Bibi defendant Nos. 1-3 also created another gift deed dated 01.09.2004 being No. 13823 in favour of defendant Nos. 1-3. In fact, those gift deeds are products of forgery and by those deeds defendant Nos. 1-3 could not acquire any right, title or interest in the suit property. In the fifth schedule of the gift deed of 1978 it has shown that .55 acre land