IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH HIGH COURT DIVISION

(CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION)

Present:

Mr. Justice S M Kuddus Zaman

CIVIL REVISION NO.198 of 2002. In the matter of:

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

And

Aymona  Bibi  being  dead  her heirs: (1) Jomshed Ali and another

               ...Petitioners

-Versus-

Government  of  Bangladesh  and others

          ...opposite parties

No one appears

        ...For the petitioners

Mr. Md. Mahfuzur Rahman, DAG with

Mr. Md. Moshihur Rahman, AAG with

Mr. Md. Mizanur Rahman, AAG

    ...For the opposite parties.    

Heard on: 13.11.2024 Judgment on: 14.11.2024.  

This  Rule  was  issued  calling  upon  the opposite party Nos.1-3 to show cause as to why the judgment and decree dated 19.09.2001 passed by the learned Joint District Judge, 2nd Court, Sylhet  in  Title  Appeal  No.14  of  1986  and affirming  the  judgment  and  decree  dated 20.08.1985  passed  by  the  learned  Munsif, Additional Sylhet in Title No.99 of 1985 should not be set aside and/or pass such other or

further order or orders as to this Court may seem fit and proper. 

Facts  in  short  are  that  petitioner  as plaintiff instituted above suit for declaration of title for 21 decimal land alleging that above land belonged to the plaintiff and her uncle Imran Ali and they transferred above land to Abdur Rahim and Joadullah by registered kobla deed dated 02.12.1952 and delivered possession. By amicable partition Abdur Rahim alone acquired title in above property and transferred the same to the plaintiff by registered kobla deed dated 30.01.1953 and delivered possession. Plaintiff is in possession in above land but S. A. khatian has been  erroneously  recorded  in  the  name  of defendants No.1 and 2.

The suit was contested by defendant No.1 by filing a written statement alleging that disputed 21 decimal land belonged to Ramesh Chandra and accordingly relevant S.A. khatian was prepared. Above Ramesh Chandra left this country for good for India before 1965 and above property was enlisted  as  enemy  property  and  subsequently vested and non-resident property. Plaintiff does not have any right title and interest in above land and above kobla deeds dated 02.12.1952 and 30.01.1953 of the plaintiff are forged, collusive and ineffective documents.

At trial plaintiff examined three witnesses and his documents were marked as Exhibit Nos.1 & 2 series. The defendant did not examine any witness nor produced and prove any document.

 On consideration of facts and circumstances of the case and evidence on record the learned Munsif, Additional Court dismissed the suit.

Being aggrieved by above judgment and decree of the trial court the plaintiff as appellant preferred Title Appeal No.14 of 1986 to the District Judge, Sylhet which was heard by the learned Sub-ordinate, 2nd Court who dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment and decree of the trial court.

 Being aggrieved by above judgment and decree of the court of appeal below above appellant as petitioner moved to this court and obtained this rule.

No one appears on behalf of the petitioner at the time of hearing of this revision although this matter appeared in list for hearing on several dates.

Mr.  Md.  Mizanur  Rahman  learned  Assistant Attorney General for the opposite parties submits that admittedly disputed land has been recorded in the name of Ramesh Chandra in the relevant S.A. khatian and P.W.2 Taher Ali has admitted in cross examination that disputed land belonged to Ramesh Chandra who left this country for good for India and the suit land has been enlisted as enemy property. The plaintiff has filed this suit for  declaration  of  title  but  she  could  not mention in the plaint the source of title of the executants of two registered documents, mentioned above.

I have considered the submissions of the learned  Assistant  Attorney  General  and  other materials on record.

It is admitted that disputed land has been recorded in the name of Ramesh Chandra in the relevant S.A. Khatian.

Plaintiff claims that above land belongs to the plaintiff and her uncle Imran but no mention has been made as to the source of their title.

It is also admitted that above kobla deed of the plaintiffs do not containing any plot number and khatian number of the land transferred by above deeds. It turns out from record that the learned judges of the trial court appointed an Advocate Commissioner for relay of the disputed

land to ascertain if the land of above two kobla  deeds attract the disputed land of this suit. Above Advocate Commissioner submitted a report

but the Advocate Commissioner was not examined at trial  and  the  defendant  did  not  get  an opportunity to cross examine above Commissioner.

As such above Advocate Commissioner report did

not attain the status of legal evidence.

Moreover, P.W.2 Taher Ali admitted that the disputed land belonged to Ramesh Chandra and the

same was rightly enlisted as Enemy property.

On  consideration  of  above  facts  and circumstances of the case and evidence on record

the learned Judge of the court of appeal below

has rightly dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment and decree of the trial court which call

for no interference.

In above view of the materials on record      I am unable to find any infirmity or illegality

in the impugned judgment and decree of the court

of appeal below nor I find any substance in this petition under section 115(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure and the rule issued in this connection is liable to be discharged.

In the result, the Rule is discharged without

any order as to cost.     

Let the lower Court’s record along with a copy of this judgment be transmitted down to the Court concerned at once.

Md.Kamrul Islam

Assistant Bench Officer