Present:

MR. JUSTICE S.M. EMDADUL HOQUE

CIVIL REVISION NO.3595 OF 2013.

IN THE MATTER OF:

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

- AND -

IN THE MATTER OF:

Krishna Prashad Dhar and others

..... Defendant-Appellant-Petitioners

-Versus-

Naresh Chandra Chakraborty

…… Defendant-Opposite parties.

Mr. Md. Ekramul Islam, Advocate

….. For the petitioners.

Mr. Md. Zakir Hossain, Advocate

…. For the opposite party.

Heard on: 06.03.2024 and Judgment on: 24.04.2024.

On an application of the petitioner Krishna Prashad Dhar and others under section 115 (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the Rule was issued calling upon the opposite party No.1 to show cause as to why the impugned judgment and decree dated 15.09.2013 (decree signed on 22.09.2013) passed by the learned Additional District Judge, (in charge) Bankruptcy Court, Chattogram in Other Appeal No.518 of 2005 disallowing the appeal and hereby affirming the judgment and decree dated 05.09.2005, (decree signed on 11.09.2015), passed by the Assistant Judge Court, Boalkhali, Chattogram in Title Suit No.17 of 2002 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 necessary for disposal of the Rule, in short, is that the opposite party No.1 as plaintiff instituted Other Class Suit No.17 of 2002 in the Court of Assistant Judge, Boalkhali, Chattogram against the defendants for declaration of title and confirmation of possession and further seeking prayer for declaration that the P.S and B.S record, prepared in the name of the predecessor of the defendants, are illegal, wrong and incorrect and contending inter-alia, that the suit land as mentioned in the plaint originally belonged to Rakhal Chandra that at the time of R.S. operation, the suit land has been recorded in the name of Rakhal Chandra in R.S. khatian and the column for remarks contained in the said khatian has recorded in the name of Rakhal Chandra as tenant of that land of which recently the plaintiffs came to know from the defendants Nos.1, 2 and 4 that at the time of P.S. and B.S. operation, the suit land, instead of being recorded in the name of Rakhal, was wrongly recorded in the names of predecessor of the defendants Nos.1-7. Rakhal Chandra died, leaving his only son, the plaintiff, with his property that the plaintiff claimed to have acquired interest in the suit land and asserts that he is in the possession of this entire land; that the plaintiffs empathically stated that the record of the suit land in favour of the predecessor of the defendant no.7 is false and wrong and hence the plaintiffs filed the suit.

The suit was contested by the defendant Nos.1, 2 and 4 by filing joint written statement denying all the material assertions made in the plaint, contending, inter-alia, that the suit land originally belonged to Rakhal Chandra, who sold the suit land to one Kali Kumar by a kabala deed dated 17.12.1936 and thereafter Kali Kumar sold the suit land to Jogesh Chardra Chowdhury, the predecessor of defendant Nos.5-7 by kabala deed dated 02.12.1954 and accordingly P.S. record was correctly recorded in his name and thereafter Jogesh Chardra Chowdhury sold the suit land to Jhunu Ram Sarder and Sona Ram Sarder by kabala being Nos.6277 and 6178 deed dated 13.10.1969 and Jhunu Ram and Sona Ram Sarder sons of Kali Kumar Sarder, while in possession, sold the suit land to Moti Bala Dhar by kabala deed being No.1363 dated 29.4.1974 the predecessor of defendant Nos.1-4 and accordingly B.S. record was prepared in her name correctly; that the defendants have been possessing the suit land peacefully with the full knowledge of the plaintiff more than 12 years that the plaintiff has/had no right, title and possession over the suit land and the suit is false which is liable to be dismissed with cost.

The defendant No.3 also co