IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH HIGH COURT DIVISION

(CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION)

Present:

Mr. Justice Md. Moinul Islam Chowdhury

Civil Revision No. 4164 of 2014 with

Civil Revision No. 4163 of 2014

IN THE MATTER OF:

An application under section 115(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

And

IN THE MATTER OF:

Zilla Parishad, Noakhali represented by its Chief Executive Officer

--- Plaintiff-Respondent-Petitioner. -versus-

Md. Abul Kalam and others {O.P. No. 2 died leaving behind his legal heirs: 2(a)-2(d)}

--- Defendant-Appellant-Opposite Parties (In C. R. No. 4164 of 2014).

Zilla Parishad, Noakhali represented by its Chief Executive Officer

--- Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner. -versus-

Md. Abul Kalam and others {O.P. No. 2 died leaving behind his legal heirs: 2(a)-2(d)}

--- Plaintiff-Respondent-Opposite Parties (In C. R. No. 4163 of 2014).

Mr. Mahbub Shafique with Mr. Gazi Hossain, Advocates

--- For the petitioner (In both cases).

Mr. Abul Kalam Chowdhury with

Mr. Iqbal Kalam Chowdhury, Advocates

--- For the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2. (In both cases).

Mr. Md. Elyas Ali Mandal, Advocate

--- For the O. P. Nos. 3 and 6 (in the C. R. No. 4164)

--- For the O.P. Nos. 6 and 7 (in the C. R. No. 4163).

Heard on: 08.05.2023, 09.05.2023, 10.05.2023, 11.05.2023, 16.05.2023, 18.05.2023 and 22.05.2023.

Date of Judgment: 30.05.2023.

The above 2 (two) civil revisions were filed by and between the same parties upon similar matters of law and facts, as such, these 2 Rules have been taken up together by passing for delivery the following single judgment as the facts of both cases involved similar parties and also related to a similar law.

At the instance of the present plaintiff-respondent- petitioner, Zilla Parishad, Noakhali represented by its Chief Executive Officer, the Rule was issued upon a revisional application being Civil Revision No. 4164 of 2014 filed under section 115(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure calling upon the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 to show cause as to why the impugned judgment and decree dated 04.05.2014 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Noakhali in the Title Appeal No. 155 of 2002 allowing the appeal and reversing those dated 19.06.2002 passed by the learned Senior Assistant Judge, Hatiya, Noakhali in the Title Suit No. 14 of 1998 decreeing the suit should not be set aside.

Another Rule was issued, at the instance of the present defendant-appellant-petitioner, Zilla Parishad, Noakhali represented by its Chief Executive Officer, the Rule was issued upon a revisional application being Civil Revision No. 4163 of 2014 filed under section 115(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure calling upon the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 to show cause as to why the impugned judgment and decree dated 04.05.2014 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Noakhali in the Title Appeal No. 153 of 2003 dismissing the appeal and affirming those dated 13.03.2003 passed by the learned Senior Assistant Judge, Hatiya, Noakhali in the Title Suit No. 45 of 1999 decreeing the suit should not be set aside.

The relevant facts for the disposal of these 2 Rules, inter- alia, are that the present opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 as the plaintiffs filed the Partition Suit No. 45 of 1999 in the Civil Revision No. 4163 of 2014 and the Title Suit No. 14 of 1998 in the Civil Revision No. 4164 of 2014.

Both the plaintiffs claimed that the common suit property originally belonged to one Purna Chandra who died leaving behind 3 sons, namely, Moti Lal, Gourango Chandra and Monmohon. The plaintiff-opposite parties purchased 2.50 acres of land from the said 3 sons of Purno Chandra by executing a sale deed where there are shops buildings, a pond and a graveyard of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs possessed the suit property measuring 2.10 acres of the suit property and the same was recorded in the names of t