IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH HIGH COURT DIVISION

(CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION)

}

CIVIL REVISION NO. 3209 OF 2011

In the matter of:

An application under Section 115(1) of the Code of

Civil Procedure, 1908.

AND

In the matter of:

Saleha Khatun and others

.... Petitioners

-Versus-

Rezaul Haque and others

....Opposite-parties Mr. Abdul Hoque with

Mr. Md. Masud Rana, Advocate

... For the petitioners

Mr. Md. Esa, Advocate

…For the opposite party no. 7-19 and 22-24 Mr. Md. Yousub Ali, Advocate

...For the opposite party nos. 47,53,54,55 and 101

Heard on 23.04.2024, 10.11.2024, 08.12.2024, 09.12.2024, 10.12.2024 and 15.12.2024.

Judgment on 15.12.2024.

Present:

Mr. Justice Md. Mozibur Rahman Miah

And

Mr. Justice Md. Bashir Ullah

Md. Mozibur Rahman Miah, J:

This matter has been referred by the Hon’ble Chief Justice of Bangladesh vide his order dated 18.04.2024.

At the instance of the petitioner nos. 1-67 who are the successor-in- interest of plaintiff nos. 1-18 in Other Class Suit No. 01 of 1972 field before the then subordinate judge, Rangpur for partition of the suit land

1 described in schedule ‘ka’ and ‘kha’ to the plaint for an area of 14.71 3

acres of total land of 58.33 acres. The suit was then on transfer to the court of the then learned subordinate judge, Nilphamari on being set up new District and renumbered as Other Class Suit No. 7 of 1983. Subsequently, on transfer to the court of learned Joint District Judge, 2nd court, Nilphamari it was again renumbered as Title Suit No. 9 of 1994 and lastly re-numbered as Title Suit No. 1 of 2003 in the court of learned Joint District Judge, Nilphamari, this rule was issued calling upon the opposite-parties to show cause as to why the judgment and decree dated 09.05.2011 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Nilphamari in Other Class Appeal No. 67 of 2009 dismissing the appeal and thereby affirming the judgment and decree dated 13.07.2009 passed by the learned Joint District Judge, Nilphamari in Title Suit No. 01 of 2003 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.

The short facts so figured in the plaint of the aforesaid Title Suit are:

The suit properties so described the scheduled ‘ka’ to the plaint originally belonged to the predecessor of both the plaintiffs and defendants namely, Amirullah. Subsequently, Amirullah died leaving behind 3 sons Velsa Mahmud, Sohorullah, Topor Pramanick and one daughter, Mohirun Bibi. Then Velsa Mahmud died leaving behind wife, Anowara and 2 sons, Badil Pramanik and Shadil Pramanik. Then Shadil Pramanik died leaving his mother, Anowara and wife, Ajimon and 2 sons, Johiruddin and Bachol Sheikh and 2 daughters defendant no. 7 and Jafran Bibi. After the demise of Ajimon Nessa, her property was inherited by her father, the defendant no. 7. Then Anowara Bibi died leaving behind son, Badia and on the demise of Badia, his property was inherited by his son, Kulto Mamud and Thila Pramanik and wives, Atomai and Asuran while Jila Pramanik died during the life time of his father.

Then Asiran died leaving behind defendant no. 18 and that of Azimuddin on the passing of Atormai.

Thereafter, Zahiruddin died leaving behind two wives, Atormai and Kaltimai, two daughters, Fazrabi and defendant no. 1 Fatema Khatun, brother Bacha Mia and sister defendant no. 7, Myo Bibi and Zafran Bibi. After the demise of Bacha Mia, his property was inherited by his wife,defendant no. 14, Abeda Khatun and 2 daughters Sakina and Suroton and two sisters Myo Bibi and Azfran. Then Sultan died leaving behind son, defendant no. 6 and defendant, Abdul Hamid. Then Zfran died leaving behind 2 sons, plaintiff nos. 8-9 and three daughters, plaintiffs nos. 10-11 and Saleha Khatun, Then Azimuddin died leaving behind his wife, plaintiff no. 15 and two sons, plaintiff nos. 8-9 and 5 daughters,

plaintif