Present:-

Mr. Justice Mahmudul Hoque

Civil Revision No. 3647 of 1996 Nur Ahmed and others

... Petitioners -Versus-

Abdur Rahman being dead his legal heirs: 1(a) Mallica Begum and others

...Opposite-Parties

Mr. Mohammad Al-Amin, Advocate

...For the Petitioners Ms. Quamrun Nessa, Advocate

...For the Opposite-Party Nos. 2-5.

Judgment on 31st October, 2024.

On an application under Section 115(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure this Rule was issued at the instance of the petitioners calling upon the opposite party Nos.1-6 to show cause as to why the impugned judgment and decree dated 21.05.1996 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge (now Joint District Judge) and Commercial Court and Artha Rin Adalat, Chattogram in Other Appeal No. 419 of 1994 disallowing the appeal and thereby affirming the judgment and decree dated 27.08.1994 passed by the learned Assistant Judge, Chandanaish, Chattogram in Title Suit No. 59 of 1985 decreeing the suit should not be set aside and/or pass such other or further order or orders as to this Court may seem fit and proper.

Shorn of unnecessary details, fact of the case lies in a very narrow compus. The opposite party Nos. 1-6, as plaintiffs, instituted Title Suit No. 59 of 1985 in the Court of Assistant Judge, Chandanaish, Chattogram against the present petitioners, as defendants, for a declaration of Mourashi Taluka and Raiyati Taluka khas Dakali right to the extent of 10 annas 10 gondas 1 kara and one kranti share in suit schedule 1-3 lands and for confirmation of possession in suit schedule 1(ka), 2(ka) and 3(ka) lands and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from entering into the suit land and also for a decree of khas possession if the plaintiffs are dispossessed by the defendants during pendency of the suit.

The case of the plaintiffs in short are that the lands in suit schedules 1, 2 and 3 belonged to three brothers namely Meahjan, Ebadullah and Hamidur Rahman alias Nur Ahmed, accordingly, C.S. khatians stand recorded in their names. C.S. Khatian No. 1 wrongly recorded in the name of Ali Ahmed instead of his father Meahjan who is son of Akbar Ali by his first wife and Ebadullah and Hamidur Rahan are the sons of Akbar Ali by second wife. Meahjan died leaving son Ali Ahmed and wife Alekjan, Ebadullah died issueless leaving brother Hamidur Rahman. Hamidur Rahman died leaving sons Amir Hamza, Nurul Hoque, Sirajul Hoque and wife Omda Khatun. Omeda Khatun died leaving aforesaid three sons. Though R. S. khatian recorded in the name of the heirs of Meahjan and Hamidur Rahman but Ali Ahmed managed to record more share in his name during R.S. operation. Ali Ahmed died leaving mother Alekjan and daughter Rashida Khatun and cousins (paternal uncle’s son) Amir Hamza, Sirajul Hoque and Nurul Hoque. Alekjan orally gifted her share to Rashida Khatun. Among the sons of Hamidur Rahma, Amir Hamza died earlier. Sirajul Hoque died leaving the plaintiffs as his heirs, Amir Hamza died leaving plaintiff Nos. 1-6. Share of the defendant No. 8 sold to plaintiff Nos. 1-3 on 23.07.1975. Abdul Gani, the minor son of Nurul Hoque died leaving the plaintiff Nos. 1-5. The plaintiffs as owners are in possession of schedules 1, 2 and 3 lands. The defendants denied title of the plaintiffs and threatened the plaintiffs with dispossession, hence the present suit.

The defendant Nos. 1-5, 6-7 and 17 contested the suit by filing separate written statements denying material allegations made in the plaint and contended inter alia, that the suit is not maintainable in its present form. The defendant Nos. 3-4 and 5 filed additional written statement. Summary of the case as made out by the defendants in their written statements in short are that the suit properties originally belonged to Akbar Ali who died leaving three sons, Meahjan by first wife who died leaving son Ali Ahmed and wife Alekjan, Hamidur Rahman and Ebadullah by