Bench:

Mr. Justice Bhishmadev Chakrabortty

Civil Revision No. 2830 of 1998

Md. Osman Ali and another

......petitioners -Versus-

Sree Dula Urao and another

......opposite parties

Mr. Md. Abdus Salam Mondal, Advocate

...... for the petitioners

Mr. Snehadri Chakrovorty with Mr. Tapas Bandhu Das, Mr. Sumon Ali and Mr. Nabil Ahmed Khan, Advocates

...... for the opposite parties Judgment on 30.10.2024

At the instance of defendants this Rule was issued calling upon the plaintiff-opposite parties to show cause as to why the judgment and decree of the then Subordinate Judge, Court 1, Naogaon passed on 03.10.1996 in Title Appeal No.112 of 1989 allowing the appeal reversing the judgment and decree of the Assistant Judge, Sapahar, Naogaon passed on 30.03.1989 in Other Class Suit No.14 of 1986 dismissing the suit should not be set aside and 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 the plaintiffs instituted the suit on the averments that they took pattan .33 acres of land of SA Khatian 6/5 which is a part of RS Khatian 82 plot 898 corresponding to CS plot 873 from the then zaminders through a hukumnama dated 25th Chaitra, 1350 BS. They have been possessing the land on payment of rent to the zaminders and

accordingly SA khatian was prepared in their names. But RS khatian was wrongly prepared in the name of the Government while they filed application to the concerned authority under section 30 of the State Acquisition and Tenancy Act for its correction and accordingly an order was passed to that effect. Inspite of that RS record was finally prepared in the name of the defendants who threatened plaintiffs of dispossession which clouded their title in the suit land, hence the suit for declaration of title simplicitar.

The defendants contested the suit by filing a set of written statement stating that their predecessor Samir Uddin and Abdul Majid by a hukumnama dated 3rd Baishakh 1349 BS took pattan .65 acres of land out of 2.80 acres of CS Plot 873 under khatian 6. Since then they have been possessing the aforesaid pattani land on payment of rent to the zaminders and subsequently to the Government. They further contended that RS khatian has been accordingly prepared for .65 acres of land in their names and they are in its peaceful possession. The suit has been filed on false statement and as such it would be dismissed.

In the trial, both the parties examined 3 witnesses each and produced documents in support of their respective claims. The Assistant Judge dismissed the suit while the plaintiffs preferred appeal before the District Judge, Naogaon. The then Subordinate Judge, Naogaon heard the appeal on transfer and allowed the same decreeing the suit by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Being aggrieved by the defendants approached this Court and obtained this Rule.

Mr. Md. Abdus Salam Mondal, learned Advocate for the petitioners taking me through the judgments passed by the Courts below submits that the plaintiffs claimed the land through a pattan in the year of 1350 BS but the record shows that plaintiff 1 was a just a baby at the time of taking pattan which is not believable. The land is not specified and as such the plaintiffs are not entitled to get decree in the suit. The recent record of right has been prepared in the name of the defendants and they are in possession of the suit land by paying rents to the concerned authority. Mr. Mondal pointing the documents of the plaintiffs submits that those are fake documents. The appellate Court most erroneously shifted the burden of proof upon the defendants and decreed the suit which cannot be sustained in law. In support of the submission Mr. Mondal refers to the cases of Noor Mohammad Khan & others vs. Government of