IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH

HIGH COURT DIVISION

(Civil Revisional Jurisdiction)

Present:

Mr. Justice S.M. Masud Hossain Dolon

Civil Revision No. 3683 of 2019

Nirendra Kumar Paul alias Mintu being dead his heirs 1(a) Sonjay Kumar Paul and others.

…. Defendant- petitioners. -Versus-

Parikshit Dutta Chowdhury and others

……. Plaintiff-opposite parties.

Mr. Sukumar Biswas with

Mrs. Benozir Shokina, Advocate

............. for the petitioners.

None appears for the opposite parties.

Heard & Judgment on: 05.09.2024.

This Rule has been issued calling upon the opposite parties to show cause as to why impugned judgment and decree dated 06.10.2019 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 1st Court, Sylhet in Title Appeal No. 315 of 2012 dismissing the appeal and thereby affirming the judgment and decree dated 21.10.2012 passed by the learned Senior Assistant Judge, Sadar Additional Court, Sylhet in Title Suit No. 245 of 2012 decreeing the suit should not be set aside and/or such other or further order or orders passed as to this Court may seem fit and proper.

Facts, relevant for disposal of the Rule, are that the predecessor of the Opposite party Nos. 1-4 as plaintiff instituted a suit being Title Suit No. 110 of 2009 before the learned Senior Assistant Judge, Sadar Additional Court, Sylhet against the defendants for declaring the Registered irrevocable Power of Attorney No. 3332 dated 11.12.2000 is void and the plaintiff is not bound by Registration Deed No. 2096 dated 10.08.2003 as it is created on the basis of fraud, collusive and vexatiousness stated alleging inter alia that the suit land along with other lands were originally belonged to Upendra Kumar Gupta and accordingly the same was recorded in his name during settlement operation. Subsequently he executed a ""Will'' regarding this suit property in favour of his only heirs daughter Shatadal Chowdhury alias Gauri Dutta Chowdhury and he appointed his son- in-law i.e. plaintiff as executor of this "Will'. Subsequently the plaintiff was entitled to the suit land as executor of alleged ""Will'' in compliance of Probate Case No. 58 of 1968. The schedule property is comprised with some Debottor (Deity's) Property and which are having sebayet (Deity's) possessor. The original plaintiff mutated the suit land in his name and he was the Government Service holder and after his retirement he felt sick, moreover the suit land was located so far from his residence that's why it was not possible for him to paying land rent according to S.A. recorded suit land in his name and thus he decided to appoint the defendant No.1 Nirendra Kumar Paul alias Mintu (since deceased) who was the husband of his religious daughter, as his Power of Attorney to take care of his property and he told the defendant No.1 to draft a Power of Attorney. The defendant No.1 drafted the Power of Attorney

The defendant No.1 took the advantage of love and affection of the predecessor of the present plaintiffs towards him and thus he totally exploited the personal relation between them and the old aged plaintiff (Prakiti Ranjan Dutta Chowdhury) was totally unaware of his misnomer attitude or irony of defendant No. 1, the predecessor of the present petitioners and subsequently he sold out the suit land to his wife i.e the defendant No. 2 on 10.08.2003 by executing registered deed No. 2096. The plaintiff was never intended to sale or gift or any kind of transfer of the suit land and there was no reason to execute such condition comprising power of attorney.

The defendant No. 1, the predecessor of the present defendants
himself inserted much unreasonable condition No. 9 to the alleged Power of Attorney in total ignorance of the plaintiffs' father and the predecessor of the defendants done if having been motivated by the ill intention to grab the property of plaintiffs through gratitude means. The original plaintiff learnt all these heinous activities of defendants after receiving the notice of Mutation Case No. 7