Present:

Mr. Justice A.K.M. Asaduzzaman

Civil Revision No. 3608 of 2002

Md. Abdul Mannan being dead his legal heirs 1(a) Md. Mehedi Hassan Tornedo and others

………… Petitioners. -Versus-

Md. Abdul Hossain being dead his legal heirs 1(a) Md. Afzal and others

……….Opposite parties.

Mr. Md. Ishaque Miah, Advocate

………For the petitioners.

Mr. Md. Abdullah Al Mamun, Advocate .........For the Opposite parties

Heard and judgment on 2nd July, 2024. A.K.M.Asaduzzaman,J.

This rule was issued calling upon the opposite parties to show cause as to why the judgment and decree dated 29.04.2002 passed by the Additional District Judge, 2nd Court, Pabna in Other Class Appeal No. 10 of 2000 reversing those dated 30.01.2000

passed by the then Subordinate Judge, 1st Court, Pabna in Other Class Suit No. 23 of 1990 dismissing the suit should not be set aside.

Opposite party as plaintiff filed Other Class Suit No. 23 of 1990 before the Court of the then Subordinate Judge, 1st Court, Pabna for declaration of title and further declaration that khatian No. 49 in place of khatian No.45 has wrongly been written in the deed dated 26.04.69 and 19.10.73.

Plaint case in short, inter alia, is that the schedule land was in ownership and possession of Mukta Sundari. Mukta Sundari used to possess the suit land through borgader since before C.S. operation. At the time of D.S. operation, the name of the landlord Mukta Sundary and Meher Biswas was recorded. After D.S. operation Mukta Sundari rejected old Borgader and gave Borga to the person selected by her. While Mukta Sundari, was in possession of the suit property, died leaving only daughter Ful Kumari, her son Proboth Chandra Adhikari. While they were in ownership and possession of the suit property, sold the schedule property to the plaintiff by two deeds dated 26.04.69 and 19.10.73. But on the last S.A. operation the suit land was wrongly recorded in the name of Rojibullah, the predecessor of the defendant Nos. 1-12 and .35 decimals of land was recorded in the name of Hari Dasi, predecessor of the defendant No.13 and the remaining land was recorded in the name of Zilla Parishad and this wrong record did not affect the title of the plaintiff and his predecessor Tarani Charan, who was not aware about the S.A. record. The deed writer due to mistake wrote khatian No.49 in place of khatian No.45 in the said two deeds dated 26.04.069 and 19.10.73. To settle this wrong recording of the khatian No, there was a salish with the Chairman of Hemaitpur Union Parishad and two Senior Advocates of the Pabna Bar and other local elites but nothing was settled and the defendant Nos. 1-13 denied the title of the plaintiff. Hence he filed this suit for declaration of title.

Petitioner as defendant Nos. 1-12 contested the suit by filing written statement denying the plaint case alleging, inter alia, that the suit land as described in schedule ‘ka’ within Pabna P.S. Mouja Rajapur, D.S. khatian No.35, former plot No. 209 measuring .94 decimals of land was belonged to permanent tenant Meher Ali Biswas under Mukta Shundari. While Meher Ali Biswas in ownership and possession of the suit property, .69 decimals of the land was acquired by Zilla Parishad to extend the Pabna Road and the remaining land of the said plot was under ownership and possession of Rajibulla Biswas @ Raton Biswas, predecessor of defendant No. 1-12. It was recorded in his name in S.A. recorded plot No.111, changing former plot No. 209 measuring .91 decimals of land in place of .94 decimals of land and 61 decimals of land in the name of defendant No.15 and 30 decimals of land of the predecessor of defendant Nos. 1-12 and wrongly recorded in the name, Tarini Charan, the defendant No.13. Whereupon he raised objection, which was accepted and the defendant No. 13 accepted the title of Rajibullah and his name was finally recorded in S.A. record. Then Rajibullah Biswas died leaving behind the defendant Nos. 1-2 opposite parties and their names were recorded in R.S.