দায়বর্জন বিবৃতি (DISCLAIMER)

এই ওয়েবসাইটে প্রকাশিত রায় বা আদেশ আপনি google translation এর মাধ্যমে বাংলায় দেখতে পাচ্ছেন তা সুপ্রীম কোর্ট কর্তৃক বাংলায় অনূদিত নয়। জনসাধারণের বিচার-প্রক্রিয়ায় সহজ অভিগম্যতা নিশ্চিতকরণের অভিপ্রায়ে বাংলায় অনূদিত রায়-আদেশ দেখার ব্যবস্থা রাখা হয়েছে। অনূদিত রায় বা আদেশের অনুলিপি সইমোহরী/জাবেদা নকলের (certified copy) বিকল্প হিসেবে অথবা অন্য কোন উদ্দেশ্যে ব্যবহার করা যাবে না। রায় ও আদেশ বাস্তবায়নের ক্ষেত্রে মামলার নথিতে বিধৃত মূল রায় বা আদেশ প্রণিধানযোগ্য।
Microsoft Word - Civil Revision No. 4915 of 2010 discharged

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH HIGH COURT DIVISION

(CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION)

Present:

Mr. Justice Zafar Ahmed

Civil Revision No. 4915 of 2010

Most. Sufia Sultana and others

........ Petitioners -Versus-

Md. Abdul Mazid being dead his legal heirs Md. Nurunnabi Islam and others

.... Opposite parties

None.

........ For petitioner Mr. Md. Musharraf Hussain, with

Mr. Kazi Shoayeb Hasan, Advocate

.... For opposite party No. 1

Heard on: 27.10.2024 and 03.11.2024 Judgment on: 06.11.2024

Farid  Uddin  Akand  as  sole  pre-emptor-petitioner  filed Preemption  Case  No.  9  of  1997  in  the  Court  of  Senior  Assistant Judge, 2nd Court, Sadar, Bogura. The preemption case was allowed on 14.03.2005.  Miscellaneous  Appeal  No.  79  of  2005  filed  by  the opposite party was allowed on 12.03.2008 and the case was sent back on remand to the trial Court. Thereafter, the trial Court rejected the pre-emption case, vide judgment and order dated 11.11.2008. Before filing the appeal, the sole pre-emptor-petitioner died and his legal heirs (wife, son and 2 daughters) filed Miscellaneous Appeal No. 24


1

of 2009 which was dismissed on 08.09.2010 by the learned Additional District Judge, 2nd Court, Bogura. Challenging the same, the legal successors  of  the  sole  pre-emptor  filed  the  instant  revision  and obtained Rule on 15.12.2010.

None appeared for the pre-emptor-petitioners when the Rule was taken up for hearing. The pre-emptee-purchaser opposite party No. 1 entered appearance in the Rule.

Both the Courts below concurrently found that the pre-emptor ceased to be a co-sharer of the case jote before sale of the case land to the pre-emptee-purchaser and as such, the right of pre-emption failed. No other issues have been raised in the instant civil revision. Now, let us  examined  whether  concurrent  finding  of  fact arrived at  by  the Courts below is correct and whether the pre-emption case was rightly disallowed.

The case land was sold to the pre-emptee-purchaser by the co- sharer of the case jote on 09.06.1991. Both the Courts below found that the pre-emptor-petitioner Farid Uddin Akand (since deceased) was a co-sharer in the case jote by inheritance. However, prior to sale of  the  case  land  to  the  pre-emptee-purchaser,  the  pre-emptor transferred  portion of his shares in the case jote to his two sons namely, Abu Raihan (present petitioner No. 2) and Borhan Ali on 15.02.1987 by a registered deed of gift. Thereafter, on 03.12.1989 the pre-emptor again transferred potion of his shares in the case jote to his

above  mentioned two  sons by  a  registered  deed  of  heba-bil-awaj. Thereafter,  on  21.04.1993  the  pre-emptor-petitioner  transferred remaining portion of his shares in the case jote to one Momtaz Uddin Fakir by a registered sale deed. Thus, before filing of the pre-emption case the pre-emptor Farid Uddin Akand had no share in the case jote and he ceased to be a co-sharer in the case jote.

The learned Advocate appearing for the pre-emptee-opposite party No. 1 referred to the case of Md. Abbas Ali vs. Md. Osman Ali and others, 6 BLD 130 and submits that in view of the ratio laid down in the reported case the pre-emptor-petitioner had lost his interest in the case jote and thus, the pre-emption case became infructuous. It is held in the reported case that the right of pre-emption and the sale giving rise to cause of action will subsist till the final order is made-if the pre-emptor’s interest in the holding is lost the proceeding for pre- emption case becomes infructuous.

In Ershad Ali vs. Rampada Das, 58 DLR 593 it is held that it is now well settled by good authorities that the pre-emptor must not only have a subsisting interest in the holding when he makes the application for pre-emption but he must continue to hold such interest until disposal of the proceeding for pre-emption.

In view of the principle laid down in above-mentioned reported cases,  I  have  no  hesitation  to  hold  that  the  pre-emptor  had  no subsisting interest in the case jote when he filed the case.

It  is  settled  principle  of  law  that  right  of  pre-emption  is  a heritable right. In a pending proceeding, the heirs are entitled to be substituted in the place of the deceased pre-emptor so as to proceed with the case [45 DLR (AD) 171]. In the instant case, admittedly the deceased sole pre-emptor transferred portion of his shares in the case jote to his two sons prior to sale of the case land to the pre-emptee- purchaser. However, those two sons were not added as co-pre-emptor during pendency  of  the pre-emption  case in  the  trial  Court  under Section 96(4) of the State Acquisition and Tenancy Act, 1950 as it stood prior to substitution of Section 96 in 2006. The sole pre-emptor- petitioner  died  after  pronouncement  of  the  judgment  by  the  trial Court. His legal heirs filed the miscellaneous appeal and prosecuted the same on behalf of the deceased pre-emptor, not as co-sharer of the case  jote.  Since  the  deceased  sole  pre-emptor  had  no  subsisting interest in the case jote, the appeal was rightly rejected. Hence, the Rule fails.

In the result, the Rule is discharged.

Send down the LCR.

Mazhar, BO