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 - CR_2609_2012_DISCHARGED

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH HIGH COURT DIVISION

(CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION)

             Present:

Mr. Justice S M Kuddus Zaman

CIVIL REVISION NO.2609 2012

In the matter of:

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

And

Tajul Islam and others

.... Petitioners

-Versus-

Abdul  Aziz  being  dead  his  heirs:  Nurun  Nahar  and others

.... Opposite parties

Mr. Mohiuddin Ahmed, Advocate

.... For the petitioners.

Mr. Md. Jahangir Hossain, Advocate

.... For the opposite party Noa.1(kha) - 1(chha).

Heard and Judgment on 25.08.2024.

On  an  application  under  Section  115(1)  of  the  Code  of  Civil Procedure this Rule was issued calling upon the opposite parties to show cause as to why the judgment and decree dated 15.04.2012 passed by the learned Joint District Judge, 2nd Court, Kishoregonj in Other Appeal No.127 of 2002 dismissing the appeal and thereby affirming the judgment and decree dated 19.03.2002 passed by the learned Assistant Judge, Tarail, Kishoregonj in Suit No.39 of 2001 dismissing the suit with cost of Tk.5,000/- should not be set aside and/or pass such other or further order or as to this Court may seem fit and proper.


1

Facts in short are that the petitioners as plaintiffs instituted above suit for a decree of perpetual injunction against the defendants for 18 decimals land appertains to C.S. plot No.639 of C.S. Khatian No.691.

It was alleged that above land belonged to three brothers namely Miahdhor, Miahfor and Nasim in equal shares. Plaintiffs are the heirs of above  mentioned  Miahfor  and  they  acquired  6  decimals  land  of Miahdhor by oral exchange and his father purchased the land of Nasir by registered kabala deed dated 06.07.1925. Thus the plaintiffs is in exclusive  possession  in  total  1618  decimal  land.  But  the  defendants have threatened the plaintiff with forcible dispossession from above land on 30.06.2001.

Defendant  No.1  contested  the  suit  by  filing  written  statement

alleging that he purchased 812 decimals land from Jinnat and Jahed by

registered  kabala  deed  dated  04.10.1945  (Exhibit-Ka)  and  he  is  in peaceful possession of above land. The plaintiffs do not have lawful title and possession in disputed 18 decimal land.

At trial plaintiffs examined 4 witnesses and defendant examined one. But no document was produced and proved by the plaintiffs and the defendants.

On consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and materials on record the learned Senior Assistant Judge dismissed the suit.

Being  aggrieved  by  the  above  judgment  and  decree  plaintiff preferred  Other  Appeal  No.127  of  2002  to  the  District  Judge, Kishoregonj which was heard by the 2nd Court of Joint District Judge who dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment and decree of the trial Court.   

Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with above judgment and decree of the Court of appeal below the appellants as petitioners moved to this Court and obtained this Rule.

Mr.  Mohiuddin  Ahmed,  learned  Advocate  for  the  petitioners submits that the defendants admit plaintiff’s title and possession in the disputed  plot and  khatian  but  not  in  total 18  decimal  of  land. The learned Courts below rightly found that the plaintiffs have title and possession in part of the disputed land but the learned Senior Assistant Judge  most  illegally  imposed  a  cost  of  Tk.5,000/-  at  the  time  of dismissing the suit without any lawful basis. The learned Joint District Judge failed to appreciate above aspect of the case and most illegally dismissed  the  appeal  of  the  petitioners  and  affirmed  the  unlawful judgment of the trial Court which is not maintain in law.

On the other hand Mr. Md. Jahangir Hossain, learned Advocate for the opposite party Nos.1(kha) – 1(chha) submits that the defendants admit the registered kabala deed dated 04.10.1945 executed by Zahed

1

and Jinnat (Exhibit-Ka) for undisputed 72 decimals land of plot No.640

but no more. Both the Court below rightly pointed out above falsity and

inconsistency in the case of the plaintiffs and on the basis of above findings rightly dismissed the suit and the learned Joint District on correct  appreciation  of  materials  on  record  lawfully  dismissed  the appeal and affirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court which calls for no interference.

I have considered the submissions of the learned Advocates for the respective parties and carefully examined all materials on record.

At the very outset it is to be mentioned that the plaintiffs have filed this suit for a decree of perpetual injunction but in the plaint the disputed land has been described by mentioning the C.S. Plot No. and C.S. Khatian. It is not understandable without the relevant R.S., S.A. or B.S. Khatian and plot No. how the disputed land will be identified and determined  and  how  a  decree  of  perpetual  injunction  will  be implemented.  The  learned  Senior  Assistant  Judge  should  have dismissed the suit on above ground alone.

As mentioned above in the disputed plot the quantity of the land is  18  decimals.  The  plaintiffs  claimed  total  land  of  the  plot.  The plaintiffs have claimed 6 decimals land of another co-sharer Miahdhor by way of oral exchange from his heirs but oral exchange does not create lawful title. Moreover, both the Courts below found that above claim of oral exchange could not be proved by the plaintiffs by legal evidence.

As  mentioned  above  defendant  No.1  claims  821  decimals  land

from the disputed plot on the basis of a registered kabala deed dated 04.10.1945  executed  by  Jahed  Ali  and  Zinnat  (Exhibity-Ka).  The plaintiffs admit the correctness and geuinity of above kabala deed for

1

undisputed 72 decimals land.

In  above  view  of the  facts and  circumstances  of  the case  and evidence  on  record  I  hold  the  learned  Judges  of  the  Courts  below rightly found that the plaintiffs could not prove his prima facie title and exclusive  possession  in  18  decimals  land  by  legal  evidence  and accordingly dismissed the suit and appeal respectively.

But  the  learned  Senior  Assistant  Judge  committed  an  error  in imposing a fine of Tk.5,000/- upon the plaintiffs without any lawful cause.  Undisputedly  plaintiffs  are  co-sharers  in  the  above  disputed jama and they have title and possession at least in a part of the land of above  plot.  As  such  the  learned  Joint  District  Judge  should  have modified the judgment and decree of the trial Court as far as imposition of above fine is concerned. But the learned Joint District Judge failed to do so which is not tenable in law.

On consideration of the above facts and circumstances of the case and evidence on record I am of the view that the ends of justice will be met if the judgment and decree of the Court of Appeal below Joint District Judge is upheld with modification.

The judgment and decree dated 15.04.2012 passed by the learned Joint  District  Judge,  2nd  Court,  Kishoregonj  as  mentioned  above  is upheld subject to exclusion of fine of Tk.5,000/- imposed upon the plaintiffs .

In  the  result,  the  Rule  is  hereby  discharged  with  above modification in the impugned judgment of the Court of appeal below. 

Send down the lower Court’s records immediately.

MD. MASUDUR RAHMAN     BENCH OFFICER