Present:

Mr.Justice S M Kuddus Zaman CIVIL REVISION NO.2976 of 2005.

1 (Ka)(i) Most. Shamima Akter and others

...Petitioners -Versus-

1(a) Mst. Umme Salma and others ...opposite parties

Mr. Shasti Sarker, Advocates

...For the petitioners

Mr. Md. Helal Uddin Mollah, Advocate ...For the opposite parties

Heard on 22.08.2024 & Judgment on 25.08.2024.

This rule was issued calling upon the opposite party No.1 to show cause as to why the judgment and decree dated 11.05.2005 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kurigram in Other Class Appeal No.94 of 2002 dismissing the appeal and affirming the judgment and decree dated 11.06.2002 passed by the learned Joint District Judge, 1st Court, Kurigram in Other Class Suit No.08 of 1998 should not be set aside and/or pass such other order or orders as to this Court may seem fit and proper.

Facts in short are that the opposite party as plaintiff instituted above suit for declaration that the auction sale of the disputed decimal land pursuant to the execution of the

decree of Rent Suit No.719 of 1959 was unlawful and not binding upon the plaintiffs and for a decree of partition.

The plaintiffs claim title in the disputed land on the basis of purchase from the heirs and successive heirs of the C. S. recorded tenants of above land.

Defendants No.1-5 claim that the disputed joma was sold in auction on 10.11.1959 pursuant to the execution of decree of Rent Suit No.719 of 1959 and the defendant purchased above auction which was confirmed on 15.12.1959 and the defendants obtained delivering of possession through court on 29.02.1960.

At trial plaintiff and defendants examined 04 witnesses each and documents produced and proved by the plaintiff were marked as Exhibit No.1-8 series and those of the defendant were marked as Exhibit No.Ka-Cha series.

On consideration of facts and circumstances of the case and materials on record the learned Joint District Judge decreed the suit.

Being aggrieved by above judgment and decree of the learned Joint District Judge defendant as appellant preferred Other Class Appeal No.94 of 2002 to the District Judge, Kurigram who dismissed above appeal and affirmed the judgment and decree of the trial court.

Being aggrieved by above judgment and decree of the court of appeal below the appellant as petitioner moved to this court and obtained this rule.

Mr. Shasti Sarker learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that the defendant purchased above property in auction which was sold in execution of the Rent decree passed by the learned Munsif in Rent Suit No.719 of 1959 and obtained sale certificate and delivery of possession through court. The defendant is in possession of the disputed land by constructing his dwelling house and excavating pond and above possession has been proved by legal evidence. The learned Judges of the courts below disbelieved the case of auction purchase of the defendants on erroneous perception that the whole sale acquisition of the rent receiving interest in greater Rangpur District took place on 11.12.1956 but in fact it was effective on 01.08.1963. As such the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge, Kurigram/Rangpur is vitiated by illegality and not tenable in law.

Mr. Md. Helal Uddin Mollah learned Advocate for the opposite parties submits that above property was never sold in auction on 10.11.1959 pursuant to execution of a rent decree passed in Rent Suit No.719 of 1959 and the heirs of the C.S. recorded tenants were in continuous and peaceful possession in above property. The defendants succeeded to prove their continuous possession in the disputed land by adducing consistent oral evidence of competent witnesses. The learned District Judge on correct appreciate of above materials on record rightly dismissed the appeal and affirmed the erroneous judgment and decree of the trial court which calls for no interference.

I have conside