Present:

Mr. Justice Sheikh Abdul Awal

and

Mr. Justice Md. Mansur Alam

First Appeal No. 55 of 2015

In the Matter of:

Memorandum of appeal from the original order.

-and-

In the Matter of:

Md. Abdus Salam Hawlader

.....Plaintiff-appellant.

-Versus-

Md. Badsha Matbor and others

...Defendant-respondents.

Mr. Md. Shariful Islam, Advocate

……. For the appellant. None appears.

….......For the respondents.

Heard on 24.10.2024, 27.10.2024 and Judgment on 30.10.2024.

Sheikh Abdul Awal, J:

This appeal at the instance of the defendant-appellant is directed against the judgment and decree dated 13.11.2014 (decree signed on 20.11.2014) passed by the learned Joint District Judge, 2nd Court, Narayangonj in Title Suit No. 483 of 2009 dismissing the suit.

The relevant facts briefly are that Appellant, Md. Abdus Salam Hawlader as plaintiff filed Title Suit No. 483 of 2009 in the court of learned Joint District Judge, 2nd Court, Narayangonj impleading the defendants for declaration of title in the suit land

as described in the schedule of the plaint and also for declaration that the deed of agreement dated 07.05.2007 is not binding upon the plaintiff-appellant. The plaint case in short is that the suit land measuring 4.5 decimal originally belonged to Abdul Gafur & Abdul Matin (defendant No. 2 & 3), who sold 4.50 decimal out of 10 decimal land to the Plaintiff-appellant through deed of sale being sale deed No. 376 dated 13.01.2008 and handed over possession of the suit land to the plaintiff-appellant. Thereafter, plaintiff mutated his name and paid rent to the Government and thereafter the plaintiff made a tin-shed house on the suit property and also took electricity & gas connection in his name. In this background the plaintiff-appellant on 16.06.2008 came to know that a previous deed of contract for sale being No. 4003 dated 07.05.2007 was executed by the defendant Nos. 2 & 3 in favour of defendant No.1 and hence, the case.

Defendant No.1 entered appearance in the suit by filing written statement denying all the material allegations made in the plaint contending, inter-alia, that there is no cause of action for filing the suit and the suit is barred by limitation, plaintiff filed the case on false averments and as such, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

The learned Joint District Judge upon considering the pleadings of the parties framed the following issues:

1. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form and manner?
2. Whether the plaintiff has right, title and possession over the suit land?

3. Whether the bainapatra dated 07.05.2007 is inoperative?
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get a decree as prayed for?

At the trial the plaintiff examined 3 witnesses and defendant side examined 2 witnesses and the parties also exhibited some documents to prove their respective cases.

The learned trial Judge upon hearing the parties and on considering the evidence and materials on record by his judgment and decree dated 13.11.2014 dismissed the suit mainly on the ground that the plaintiff by adducing evidence could not prove his right, title and possession in the suit land.

Being aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned judgment and decree dated 13.11.2014 passed by the learned Joint District Judge, 2nd Court, Narayangonj the plaintiff-appellant preferred this First Appeal.

Mr. Md. Shariful Islam, the learned Advocate appearing for the plaintiff-petitioner in the course of argument takes me through the impugned judgment, plaint of the suit, written statements, deposition of witnesses and other materials on record and then submits that the trial court below without applying its judicial mind into the facts of the case and law bearing on the subject most illegally dismissed the suit on the finding that the plaintiff could not prove his case by adducing sufficient evidence. He further submits that in this case admittedly the plaintiff purchased the suit land by register