Present:-

Mr. Justice Mahmudul Hoque Civil Revision No. 2008 of 1996

Md. Mojnur Rahman

...... Petitioner -Versus-

Munshi Abu Bakkar and others

..... Opposite-Parties

Mr. Md. Badruddoja Babu, Advocate with Mrs. Sharmin Rahman, Advocate

… For the Petitioner

No one appears

… For the Opposite Parties

Judgment on 10.01.2024

In this revision Rule was issued calling upon the opposite party No. 1 to show cause as to why the impugned judgment and decree dated 15.10.1995 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge (now Joint District Judge, Court No. 1, Magura) in Title Appeal No. 124 of 1993 reversing the judgment and decree dated 30.09.1993 passed by the learned Assistant Judge, Sadar, Magura in Title Suit No. 143 of 1992 shall not be set aside and/or pass such other or further order or orders as to this Court may seem

fit and proper.

Facts relevant for disposal of this Rule, in short, are that the opposite party No. 1, as plaintiff, instituted Title Suit No. 143 of 1992 in the court of Assistant Judge, Sadar, Magura, against the present petitioner and opposite party Nos. 2-4 as defendants, for a decree of declaration of title, confirmation of possession and for permanent injunction contending

inter alia, that the suit land comprising Plot No. 1996 measuring 15 sataks originally belonged to Joynal, Mokbul and Imarat who sold the same to the plaintiff on 15.02.1968. Plot Nos. 1998 and 1999 measuring 12 sataks belonged to Munshi Golam Rasul predecessor of plaintiff and defendants. Golam Rasul died leaving sons plaintiff and defendant No. 1, daughter Rizia Khatun, defendant No. 4 and wife Mariam Bibi, Defendant No. 3. Mariam Bibi and Rizia Khatun amicably surrendered their share to the plaintiff. Accordingly, the plaintiff acquired title in 15 sataks of land under Plot No. 1996 by purchase and 8 sataks of land under Plot Nos. 1998 and 1999 totalling 23 sataks. The defendant No.1 amicably got 4 sataks of land on the north-east portion of Plot Nos.1998 and 1999 and he was possessing the same. Three plots situated side by side and formed a compact block. Out of 27 sataks the plaintiff has been possessing 23 sataks of land by erecting homestead thereon and planting various types of trees with the knowledge of defendant No. 1 and all other co-sharers including defendant No. 2. When the plaintiff went to the local tahshil for payment of rent, he came to know that Plot No. 1996 stand recorded jointly in the names of plaintiff and the defendant No. 1 showing equal share in the property. Because of his mental illness, he could not follow up survey and the Plot No. 1996 wrongly recorded in the name of two brothers instead of recording the same in his name alone. When the plaintiff recovered, he came to know that the defendant No. 1 in connivance with defendant No. 2 and other evil persons of the locality created a sale deed in favour of defendant No. 2 transferring 1321 sataks of

land from Plot Nos. 1996, 1998 and 1999, whereas, the defendant No. 1

had no right, title and possession in 1321 sataks of land, but he had right,

title and possession in 4 sataks of land on the north-east portion of the compact block. He purposely transferred the property in favour of defendant No. 2 in excess of his title and entitlement.

The defendant No. 2 after purchase half portion of the property from defendant No. 1 threatened the plaintiff with dispossession claiming title in the property by purchase from defendant No. 1. The defendant No. 1 had no possession beyond 4 sataks of land and no right to transfer any property under Plot No. 1996 which was purchased by the plaintiff alone in the year 1968. Being threatened by the defendant No. 2 with dispossession the plaintiff has constrained to file the present suit for declaration of title, confirmation of possession and for permanent injunction.

Defendant No. 2 contested the suit by filing written statement denying all the material allegations made in the plaint contending inter alia, that Plot No. 1996 measuri