Bench:

Mr. Justice Bhishmadev Chakrabortty Civil Revision No.1093 of 2018

Suraiya Begum and others .....petitioners

-Versus-

Sk. Md. Sahin and others

......opposite parties

Mr.Md. Ekramul Islam, Advocate

...... for the petitioner

Mr. Tapon Kumar Bepary with

Mr. Bulbul Das, Advocates

...... for the opposite parties

Judgment on 16.07.2024

This rule at the instance of the defendants was issued calling upon the opposite parties to show cause as to why the judgment and decree of the District Judge, Pirojpur passed on 15.03.2018 in Title Appeal No. 37 of 2017 dismissing the appeal affirming the judgment and decree of the Assistant Judge, Nesarabad, Pirojpur passed on 13.06.2017 in Title Suit No. 16 of 2015 decreeing the suit for permanent injunction should not be set aside and/or such other or further order or orders passed to this court may seem fit and proper.

Facts relevant for disposal of the rule, in brief, are that opposite parties herein as plaintiffs instituted the aforesaid suit alleging, inter alia, that SA khatian 1/33 in respect of 14.73 acres of land was prepared in the name of Saleha Khatun and others. During possession and enjoyment of her share measuring .83 acres she died leaving behind 2 sons Mostafa Kamal alias Kamal Pasha,

Ismot Pasha and daughter Parul Begum. The above heirs got possession of .25 acres from SA plot 664, .27 acres from SA plot 669, .04 acres from SA plot 690, .03 acres from SA plot 691 and .24 acres from SA plot 692. Accordingly BS khatian 987 plots 2074, 2066, 2060, 2059 and 2061 in respect of .83 acres has been prepared in their names. Kamal Pasha and Ismot Pasha sold out .20 acres from SA plot 664 to Jahangir Kabir through a registered kabala dated 02.02.1998. They further sold land to others and remained in possession of .27 acres of plot 2066. Kamal Pasha sold out his share of .108 acres to defendants 1 and 2 through kabala dated 21.03.2011 and handedover possession thereof. The land of plot 669 of SA khatian 1/33 is homestead. The other land of that khatian are nal, bhiti and garden. The deed writer erroneously included plot 666 of SA khatian 1/33 and described it as homestead. Modasser Ali the recorded owner died leaving behind his 2 sons Abdul Hossain and Siddiqur Rahman and 3 daughters Hazera Begum, Shahina Begum and Rabia Khatun. Abdul Hossain died leaving his son Md. Shahin and defendant 1 as heirs. Plaintiff 2 Manirul Islam is the son of Siddiqur Rahman. The plaintiffs filed miscellaneous case got an order therein on 25.12.2014 and opened new khatian 1706. He remained in possession over the land by paying rent to the government. Defendants 1-5 are the heirs of Abdul Hakim, the recorded owner of the land described in schedule ‘Ka’ to the plaint. Their land was recorded in DP No. 14 and they with their predecessor transferred their share to others as per the mutual possession they hold over the land. The defendants out of greed tried to enter into the land of the plaintiffs on 13.02.2015 and threatened them for dispossession and hence the suit for permanent injunction.

Defendants 1-5 contested the suit by filing written statement. In the written statement they denied the statements made in the plaint. They admitted preparation of SA khatian 1/33 in the name of Saleha Khatun and others and the remaining land of SA plots 691 and 669 of SA khatian 1/33. They further claimed that total 17.03 acres of land was recorded in the aforesaid two SA khatians. But the quantum was reduced to 15.62 acres. The aforesaid land would be divided equally among the 5 persons named in the khatian. The name of Abdul Hakim was correctly recorded in SA khatian 1/33. He died leaving behind his only son Akbar Ali in whose name in BS khatian 14 has been prepared. He died leaving behind defendants 1-5 as heirs and they are in possession over 1.82 acres through cultivation. In Miscellaneous Petition No. 313