IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH HIGH COURT DIVISION

(CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION)

CIVIL REVISION NO. 1526 OF 1995 IN THE MATTER OF:

Sunil Kumar Das and another

....Petitioners -Vs-

Sudhangshu Bimal Das and others

....Opposite Parties Mr. Surojit Bhattacharjee, Adv. with

Mr. Saleh Mahmood Naheed, Adv.

... For the petitioners

Mr. Tabarak Hussain, Sr. Adv. with

Ms. Urmee Rahman, Adv.

...For the opposite parties

Heard on: 20.06.2023, 08.11.2023 & 05.12.2023

And

Judgment on: The 7th March, 2024

Present:

Mamnoon Rahman, J:

In an application under section 115(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 rule was issued calling upon the opposite parties No. 1- 5 to show cause as to why the impugned judgment and decree dated 09.08.1994 passed by the then Subordinate Judge, 2nd Commercial Court, Chittagong in Other Appeal No. 669 of 1991 dismissing the appeal and affirming the judgment and decree dated 29.10.1991 and 05.01.1991 passed by the Assistant Judge, Rauzan in Other Suit No. 04 of 1990 dismissing 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.

The short facts relevant for disposal of this rule, is that, the petitioners and the predecessor of the opposite parties No. 4 and 5, Prem Nath Das as plaintiffs instituted Other Suit No. 04 of 1990 in the court of Assistant Judge, Rauzan, Chittagong on 02.01.1990 against the opposite parties No. 1-5 herein impleading them as defendants praying for declaration of title by way of inheritance and for a declaration that the P.S. and B.S. records are incorrect and plaintiffs’ title is not affected by the same. The case of the plaintiffs-petitioners, in short, is that, the suit land originally belonged to Ram Kumar Das and R.S. khatian in respect thereof was correctly prepared and finally published in his name. Ram Kumar Das died leaving behind 3 sons namely, Prem Nath Das (plaintiff No. 1), Pran Krishna Das and Ramesh Chandra Das. Pran Krishna died leaving behind two sons: the plaintiffs No. 2 and 3. Ramesh Chandra died leaving behind only son Himangshu Chandra Das, who relinquished his 1/3rd share in the suit land in favour of the plaintiffs and has been living at Mirzapur, Police Station Hathazari, Chittagong. In this way the plaintiffs acquired right, title and interest in the suit land and they have been possessing the same constructing dwelling houses thereon. The father of the plaintiffs No. 2 and 3 died when they were minors and as such plaintiff No. 2 had to work as a servant under different persons. Sumati Das, the father of the defendants No. 2 and 3 engaged plaintiff No. 2 in a shop at Fakirhat as a servant on the basis of nominal monthly salary. The plaintiff No. 3 also took service in a paper shop under Nishi Chandra at Kaptai. Sumati Das and Nishi Chandra used to look after plaintiffs No. 2 and 3 and also their properties. While doing so they managed to record the properties in their names. Later, on the plaintiffs after collecting certified copies of the P.S. and B.S. khatians came to know that the record regarding the suit land were wrongly prepared in the names of the defendants. Thereafter, they requested the defendants to make the record correct but they refused to do so. Hence the suit.

The defendants No. 1 and 3 contested the suit by filing a joint written statement denying all the material allegations made in the plaint. The case of the defendants-opposite parties runs as follows:

“The suit land originally belonged to Ram Kumar Das, who mortgaged the same to Surjamoni Das by the registered deed dated 01.04.1915. Since Ram Kumar Das failed to redeem the mortgage, the land was put to auction sale as per the terms and conditions and Surjamoni purchased the same. While in possession, he transferred the said land in the name of his wife Goyeswari and she transferred the same to her only daughter’s son Kali Kinkor Das by the