IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH HIGH COURT DIVISI0N

(CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION)

Present:

Mr. Justice Md. Moinul Islam Chowdhury

CIVIL REVISION NO. 2881 OF 2015 Md. Shah Alam

----- Plaintiff-Respondent-Petitioner -Versus-

Md. Saijuddin and others

----- Defendants-Appellants-Opposite Parties

Mr. Md. Shah Alam Sarker, Advocate

----- For the Petitioner Mr. Kawser Ahmed Halim, Advocate

----- For the Opposite Parties

Heard on: 13.03.2018, 15.03.2018 and 18.03.2018

Judgment on: 28.03.2018

At the instance of the present plaintiff-respondent-petitioner, Md. Shah Alam, this Rule has been issued calling upon the opposite party Nos. 1-2 to show cause as to why the judgment and decree dated 27.05.2015 passed by the learned Joint District Judge, 1st Court, Kurigrame in Other Class Appeal No. 60 of 2010 allowing the appeal and reversing those dated 29.04.2010 passed by the learned Assistant Judge, Rowmari, Kurigrame decreeing the Other Class Suit No. 38 of 2008 should not be set aside.

The relevant facts for disposal of this Rule, inter-alia, are that the present petitioner as the plaintiff filed the Other Class Suit No. 38 of

2008 in the court of learned Assistant Judge, Rowmari, Kurigrame for declaration that the sale deed No. 4307 dated 30.09.2004 was collusive, fraudulent and not binding upon the plaintiff. The plaint contains that the suit land originally belonged to the father of the plaintiff and the defendant namely Naburuddin who died leaving behind 6(six) sons, 3(three) daughters and Saijan Bewa as widow. The said Saijan Bewa was entitled to and in possession of 73 decimals of land and after her death the children were possessing as co-owners. The defendant Nos. 1 and 2 created a forged deed dated 30.09.2004 showing the said Saijan Bewa as vendor but Saijan Bewa never created such document and never received any money from them. The plaintiff came to know about the sale deed on 12.03.2008 and filed the present suit.

The suit was contested by the present opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 as the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 by filing a written statement by denying all the statements made in the plaint. It is further contended that Saijan Bewa as the mother of the present opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 needed cash money for certain purposes, therefore, she transferred the suit land in favour of the present opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 by a deed dated 30.09.2004 after receiving the consideration money. She executed and registered the said deed in order to sale entire her 73 decimals of land described in the plaint of the suit. However, there were some mistakes regarding the name of Edris Ali (present opposite party No. 2) and

Naburuddin (father of the petitioner and opposite parties) which were corrected and replaced after following the required formalities under the law.

After hearing the parties and considering the evidence submitted by the parties the learned trial court decreed the suit by passing the judgment and decree dated 29.04.2010. Being aggrieved the present opposite parties as the appellants preferred the Other Class Appeal No. 60 of 2010 in the court of the learned District Judge, Kurigrame which was heard by the learned Joint District Judge, Court No. 1, Kuigrame on transfer who by his judgment and decree dated 27.05.2015 allowed the appeal by reversing the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court. This revisional application has been filed challenging the legality of the said impugned judgment passed by the learned appellate court below and the Rule was issued thereupon.

Mr. Md. Shah Alam Sarker, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the learned trial court after considering properly the documents adduced and produced by the parties decreed the suit but the learned appellate court below without controverting the findings of the trial court reversed and set aside the judgment of the trial court regarding title and possession of the present petitioner, therefore, came to a wrong de