Present:

Mr. Justice A.K.M. Asaduzzaman

Civil Revision No.4167 of 2013

Sri Dhirendra Nath Pramanik.

……………Petitioner. -Versus-

Boykuntha Nath Pramanik.

………….Opposite party.

None appears.

……….For the petitioner.

Mr. Md. Humayun Kabir Adv.

.........For the Opposite party.

Heard and Judgment on 25.01.2024. A.K.M.Asaduzzaman,J.

This rule was issued calling upon the opposite party to show

cause as to why judgment and decree dated 16.01.2013 passed by the Joint District Judge, 2nd Court, Natore in Title Appeal No. 144 of 2007 affirming those dated 12.11.2007 passed by the Assistant Judge, Additional Court, Sadar, Natore in Other Class Suit No. 42 of 2003 dismissing the suit should not be set aside.

Petitioner as plaintiff filed Other Class Suit No. 42 of 2003 before the Court of Assistant Judge, Sadar, Natore for declaration of title and for further declaration that recording of S.A. and R.S. khatian are wrong.

Plaint Case in short inter-alia is that one Ganga Dhar was the C.S. recorded tenant of the suit land then he settled the land to Sremoti Ranibala Dashya then said Ranibala Dashya being owner in possession proposed to sell out the suit land as such the mother of the plaintiff agreed to purchase the suit land for his beloved son and accordingly she paid the consideration money and purchased the land in the name of plaintiff by two registered saf-kabala deed being nos. 12635 and 12636 dated 15.12.1955. At the time of preparation of S.A. record, the father of the plaintiff was no more and the plaintiff was young as such the elder brother of the plaintiff, the defendant was the person to look after the preparation of record and he recorded the land in his name instead of the plaintiff and same thing he did at the time of preparation of R.S. record, Defendant assured the plaintiff that though the records have been prepared in his name, he would never claim the suit land. Plaintiff had/has been in possession of the suit land and the defendant never possesses the suit land. Therefore the defendant claimed title over the suit land in the year of 2003 then the plaintiff demanded the papers of the suit land from the defendant but the defendant in deferent pretext deferred to give the papers then the plaintiff obtained the certified copy of the record of right and found that in S.A. and R.S. khatian, the name of the defendant along with the plaintiff has been recorded. Plaintiff also found that the name of Ranibala Dashya was also recorded erroneously, due to erroneous entry of the S.A. and R.S. khatian, the title of the plaintiff has been clouded as such he filed this suit.

Opposite party as defendant contested the suit by filing written statements, denying the plaint case alleging, inter-alia, that the father of the plaintiff and the defendant died in the year 1955 since then their mother maintained them from the joint property and therefore the mother of the plaintiff and the defendant from the account of joint family purchased the suit land for the interest of the joint family, though the saf-kabala deed stand in the name of the plaintiff, Plaintiff and the defendant both were minor and they have 5/6 years age deference. Subsequently some other property also purchased in the name of the defendant and the plaintiff but all the property have been possessed by the plaintiff and the defendant jointly in ejmali, Plaintiff and the defendant are in joint possession of the suit land and therefore by amicably the defendant is in possessions of part of the suit land, plaintiff in collusion of the village bad person filed this suit.

During trial following issues were framed-

1. Whether the suit is maintainable in it’s present form?
2. Whether the suit is bad for defect of parties ?
3. Whether the suit is barred by limitation?

4. Whether the plaintiff is the owner and possessor of the land?
5. What other relief or relieves plaintiff is entitled to get? By the judgment and decree dated 12.11.2007, the Assistant

Judge, Additional Court, Sadar, Na