Present:

MR. JUSTICE S.M. EMDADUL HOQUE CIVIL REVISION NO. 426 OF 1991.

IN THE MATTER OF:

An application under section 25 of The Small Causes Courts Act, 1887.

- AND -

IN THE MATTER OF:

M. Sultan Ahmed, being dead his heirs 1(a) Mohammad Rafiqul Islam Sarder and others.

….plaintiff-petitioners.

-Versus –

Md. Mahmudul Anwar and others.

….defendant-opposite parties.

Mr. Manzur-al- Matin, Advocate, with

Mr. Tapos Bhundu Das, Advocate

….. For the petitioners. Mr. Md. Tajul Islam Chowdhury, Advocate

….. For opposite parties.

Heard on: 27.02.2024, 05.03.2024 and Judgment on 06.03.2024. On an application of the petitioners M. Sultan Ahmed, being dead

his heirs 1(a) Mohammad Rafiqul Islam Sarder and others under section 25 of The Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, the Rule was issued calling upon the opposite parties to show cause as to why the impugned judgment and decree dated 25.10.1990 passed by the Senior Assistant Judge, Chattogram in S.C.C. Suit No. 38 of 1986 actually the Small Causes 1st Court, Sadar, Chattogram but inadvertently, in the decree, has been mentioned as Senior Assistant Judge, 1st Court, Chattogram dismissing 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 suit properties belonged to the Aladi Jamadar Wakf Estate and according to the R.S. khatian Khondakar Azizullah was the Mutwalli of the Wakf Estate since 08.11.1921. During the R.S. operation commencing from 1926 and ending in 1930/1931, Khondakar Azizullah had been the Mutwalli of the Wakf Estate and the R.S. record was accordingly prepared. One Ershadullah Muktar was tenant under the said Wakf Estate and after his death in 1955 his sons the defendant Nos. 1-3 did not pay the rent to the Wakf Estate and neither Ershadullah nor his sons, the defendant Nos. 1-3 did not surrender the possession of scheduled properties in favour the Wakf Estate. The tenancy right was not inherited to the defendant Nos.1- 3, they are not entitled to get notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The defendant Nos.1-3 fraudulently recorded their names in the P.S. khatian in respect of the suit properties but recording their names in those khatians they did not acquire any right, title, interest and possession in the suit premises. Abdus Salam, a Mutwalli of the Wakf Estate, created various papers and documents collusively with the ultimate object of misappropriating the scheduled properties including other properties and for his such heinous object and other questionable activities, he was removed from the Mutwalliship. If there is any documents, created for the purpose of establishing title of the defendant Nos.1-3 in the suit land, are illegal, collusive, bogus, fraudulent and without any consideration and the Wakf Estate is not bound by those

documents. The plaintiff demanded khas possession of the suit premises including the compensation from the defendant Nos. 1-3, lastly on the 1st week of November, 1986 but to no effect and as such the plaintiff has been constrained to file this suit with the prayer of eviction of the defendant Nos.1-3 from the suit premises and prayed other relief also.

The suit was contested by the defendant Nos. 1-3 by filing joint written statements, denying all the material assertions made in the plaint, contending, inter alia, that the suit is not maintainable that there is no cause of action that the plaintiff does not have possession over the suit land and as such the plaintiff is not entitled to get any relief in this suit. There is no landlord and tenancy relation between the plaintiff and the defendant Nos. 1-3. The suit is barred by section 23 of The Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 and also barred by estoppels, waiver and acquiescence and denied all other material allegations of the plaint. The fact o