IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH HIGH COURT DIVISION

(CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION)

Present:

Mr. Justice S M Kuddus Zaman

CIVIL REVISION NO. 2053 OF 2006

In the matter of:

An application under Section 115(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

And

Md. Siddiqur Rahman and others

... Petitioners

-Versus-

Samsunnahar Begum being her legal heirs: A.K.M. Nur Alam @ Alam Raihan and others

... Opposite parties

Mr. Md. Shahidul Islam, Advocate

.... For the petitioners.

Ms. Anita Gazi Rahman with

Mr. Md. Sumon Ali, Advocate

…. For the opposite party Nos.1(a)- 1(f).

Mr. Rafiqul Islam (Hiru), Advocate

…. For the opposite party No.2. Heard and Judgment on 29.10.2024.

This Rule was issued calling upon the opposite party Nos.1-2 to show cause as to why the impugned judgment and decree dated 23.03.2006 passed by the learned Joint District Judge, 3rd Court, Barishal, in Title Appeal No.189 of 1999 affirming those dated 31.08.1999 passed by the learned Senior Assistant Judge, Barisal Sadar in Title Suit No.1678 of 1984 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.

Facts in short are that the petitioners as plaintiffs instituted above suit for declaration of title for 22 decimal land and for further

declaration that the auction sale of above land pursuant to Certificate Case No.1769 of 1984-85 was illegal, void and not binding upon the plaintiff and for recovery of possession by eviction of the huts of the defendants.

It was alleged that above land belonged to Abdus Sobhan father of the plaintiff who transferred the same to the plaintiff by a registered deed of patta dated 19.03.1942. Above Sobhan constructed dwelling huts in above land and rented out the same to Shamuyel Chandra Adhikari and Shimul Chandra Roy by a registered deed of patta dated 16.06.1937. The S.A. Khatian of land was erroneously recorded in the name of above tenants and on the request of the plaintiff above Shamuyel Chandra Adhikari transferred above land by a registered kabala deed on 19.11.1955 to the plaintiff and his mother Rabeya Khatun and delivered possession. Another tenant Kiron Chandra Roy surrendered his share in the disputed land voluntarily and the plaintiff was in peaceful possession in above land. The defendants forcibly dispossessed the plaintiff from above land on 24.12.1992.

Defendant Nos.9 and 16 contested the suit by filing two separate written statements. Defendant No.9 alleged that Shamuyel Chandra Adhikari was the owner and possessor in above land and after his demise his share was inherited by defendant Nos.6-8 who transferred the same to defendant No.9 by a registered kabola deed dated 11.03.1972. Defendant No.9 is in peaceful possession in above dwelling house. Plaintiff did not have any title and possession in above land nor the defendants dispossessed him from the disputed land.

On the other hand defendant No.16 claims the share of Kiron Chandra Roy and Shimul Chandra Roy alleging that Kiron Chandra Roy transferred his share in the disputed land to the son of Shimul Chandra Roy by a registered on dated 23.03.1947 and Shimul Chandra Roy gave settlement of 6.11 decimal land to Sheikh Farid and the relevant S.A. Khatian was rightly prepared in the name of Sheikh Farid. Above land was sold in auction pursuant to a Certificate Case for recovery of arrear rents and the same was purchased by defendant No.16 and he is in possession in above dwelling house.

At trial plaintiffs examined 4 witnesses and defendants examined 3. Documents produced and proved by the plaintiffs were marked as Exhibit Nos.1-13 and those of the defendants were marked as Exhibit Nos.Ka-Ta series.

On consideration of the facts and circumstance of the case and evidence on record the learned Senior Assistant Judge dismissed the suit.

Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with above judg