h¡wm¡ cn p¤fË£j ®L¡VÑ

q¡C L¡VÑ ¢hi¡N

( )

frN Zx

 .........clM¡Ù¹L¡l£

.........

¢h‘ BCeS£h£NZx

.........clM¡Ù¹L¡l£

.........

“Records be called for.

Let  a  Rule  be  issued  calling  upon  the  opposite party  Nos.1-21  to  show  cause  as  to  why  the impugned judgment and decree dated 06.08.2014, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Narail, in Title Appeal No. 97 of 2000, affirming those  dated  30.09.1999,  passed  by  the  learned Sub-Judge,  Narail,  in  Title  Suit  No.36  of  1999 (previous  T.S.  No.110  of  1992  of  Sadar  Court, Narail) should not be set aside and/or such other or further order or orders as this Court may seem fit and proper should not be passed.”

Misreading  

The concurrent findings of the Courts below are based on sound reasoning and they do not suffer from any illegality and there is no misreading and non-reading or non-consideration of evidence on record and as such, the Rule is liable to be discharged.

Subsisting interest

The Appellate Court as a last court of fact

“I  examined  the  evidences  both  oral  and documentary  and  found  that  the  plaintiffs  have adduced  their  deeds  dated  05.07.84  (Exbt.1and Exbt.2) and to substantiate their claim in respect of those deeds plaintiffs have adduced witnesses and among them the witness specially PW. 5 Abu Lizur Rahman one of the transferors of the deeds. On examination of the deeds and statements of the PWs in support of those deeds it appears that there is no dispute about the execution of the deeds. But question arises as to whether title has accrued in favour  of  the  transferors.  From  the  above discussions it transpires that before the transfer by the deeds dated 05.07.1984 the predecessors of the transferors lost their title and interest in the suit land.  Because  it  has  been  discussed  above elaborately that as Anech Mollah made settlement to Shamsuddin Biswas, the heirs and subsequent heir of Anech Mollah had no subsisting right, title and interest in the suit land. Regarding possession of the suit land, I examined all the PWs and DWs and found that the plaintiffs have no possession in the suit land but the defendant No. 3 and the said Madrasha (now primary School) are in possession of the suit plot. So, it can safely be concluded that though the plaintiffs got executed and registered of 2 deeds dated 05.07.84 (Exbt. 1 & Exbt. 2) no title was  transferred  by  those  deeds  because  the transferors had no title thereto, that was merely a paper transaction. So the decision and observation of the Ld. Trial Court in respect of the right, title and possession in the suit land in favour of the defendant No. 3 and against the plaintiffs based on well reasons and sufficient grounds and as such succeeds.”

The  judgment  of  the  Appellate  Court  is  a  tailor-made  one  and therefore, the same does not warrant for any interference The concurrent findings of the Courts below are based on sound reasoning and  there  is  no  apparent  misreading  and  non-reading  or  non- consideration  of  the  evidence  on  record

Concurrent findings)

discharge