Bench:

Mr. Justice Bhishmadev Chakrabortty

Civil Revision No. 1667 of 2016

Samroz Khan and another .....petitioners

-Versus-

Md. Tara Miah and others

..... opposite parties

Mr. A B M Rafiqul Haque Talukder,

Advocate .....for the petitioners

Mr. Abdullah Al Mamun, Advocate

.....for opposite parties 1(a)-1(f)

Judgment on 28.07.2024

The trial Court decreed the suit for permanent injunction and it was affirmed by the appellate Court against which the defendant approached this Court and obtained this rule.

Opposite party1 as plaintiff instituted Other Class Suit No. 49 of 2004 in the Court of Senior Assistant Judge, Netrokona against the petitioners and others stating that Gurudayal Namo Das was the recorded owner of land appertaining to CS khatian 14. His nephew Kailash Chandra Namo Das during his possession and enjoyment transferred the total land of plot 20 measuring an area of 1.29 acres to Shree Lakshmi Narayan Goswami by a registered kabala dated 16.02.1945. Accordingly SA khatian was prepared in her name correctly. She died leaving behind her only son Udbhab Prasad Goswami. During his possession and enjoyment Udbhab sold it to Khudbanu Nessa through a kabala dated 02.08.1978 and handed over

possession thereof. After purchase, Khudbanu mutated her name and paid rent to the concerned and subsequently sold out .90 acres to the plaintiff through a kabala dated 23.6.1993. After purchase the plaintiff mutated his name and paid rent to the government. It was further stated that, in the meantime if the defendants manage to obtain any decree for the suit land by practicing fraud upon the court without impleading the plaintiff, it would not be binding upon him. The defendants threatened the plaintiff on 04.04.2004 of dispossession but he somehow resisted them. Although they left the place at that time but threatened him that they would come again and dispossess him from the suit land. Hence the suit for permanent injunction in respect of suit land.

Defendants 1-5 and 14 contested the suit by filing written statement. In the written statements they denied the statements made in the plaint and further contented that Udbhab, son of Lakhsmi Narayan Goswami during his possession and enjoyment gave pattan of the land to Samir Uddin Khan, Jamir Uddin Khan and Atar Ali Khan, the pre-decessors of the defendants on taking salami. The defendants’ pre-decessors paid rent to the superior landlord and during their possession and enjoyment SA khatian was prepared in their names. After the death of above three, they took settlement from Udbhab. Their heirs instituted Partition Suit No. 21 of 1999 which was still then pending. Udbhab Goswami never sold out the suit land to Khudbanu and the deed in her name was not acted upon. The plaintiff created those documents only to grab the suit land. The defendants have possession in the suit land. Moreover .43 acres of land along others was being possessed by defendants 1 and 15 and for creating disturbance in possessing the suit land they instituted Other Class Suit No. 90 of 1994 and obtained a decree. Moreover, one Priti Rani Saha instituted a suit in which she lost. She went up to the High Court division in a civil revision challenging the judgment and decree passed in the aforesaid suit. The plaintiff is aware of the aforesaid fact but instituted the suit on false statement. Actually he has no title and possession over the suit land and as such the suit would be dismissed.

On pleadings the trial Court framed four issues. Among them the vital issue was whether the plaintiff has prima facie title and exclusive possession over the suit land. In the trial the plaintiff examined 8(eight) witnesses and their documents were exhibits 1-7. On the other hand the defendants examined 6(six) witnesses and produced the certified copies of SA khatian 20 only. However, the Assistant Judge