Under the section a tenant must show that the had been holding the property in question for a period of not less than twelve years without any lease. Mere suggestion of uninterrupted possession for “12 years” or that the plaintiff had
acquired “an absolute title” is not enough to raise such a plea.
(1) claim adverse possession it must be specifically pleaded in the plaint.
(2) hostile must be asserted,
(3) adverse possession must be adequate in continuity
(4) Evidence must be adduced to show when possession became adverse so that the starting point of limitation against the party there was no attempt to prove since when the adverse possession has started.
Sree Mati Gouri Das & Ors. Vs. A. B. Hasan Kabir & Ors. 11BLT (AD)-87
In view of the nature of settlement as given to Abdul Hakim “‘Mirash Bandubasta” of the suit land, followed by continuous possession over 12 years, by raising constructions, such settlement, falls into one such class under Section 7(2) of the Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act. The tenancy in question was created prior to 22.3.42 which continued on 20.10.49 when Act XXIII of 1949 came into force and in view of Section 89A of the said Act the plaintiffs accured an interest to continue such possession as of right which is protected from eviction. The interest of Abdul Hakim in the suit land in such tenancy has been transmitted by inheritance, to the plaintiffs on the death of Abdul Hakim under clause (II) of Sub-section (5) of section 7.
Ramjan Mia & Ors. Vs. Idu Mia & Ors. 10 BLT (HCD)-229
Question of Limitation
The pre-emptor is entitled to make the application for pre-emption within 4 months from date of registration and not from the date of receipt of copy of sale deed.
Harunur Rashid Vs. Afroza Khanam & Ors. 9 BLT(HCD)-135
By now it is well settled that for the purpose of pre-emption under section 24(1) of Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act Co-sharership in the land is material. A co-sharer in land becomes entitled to pre-empt under Section 24(1) of the Act if any portion of such land is transferred to stranger.
Md. Shah Alam Vs. Alhaj M.S. Shahifur Rahman & Ors. 11BLT(HCD)-189
By now it is well settled that for the purpose of pre-emption under section 24(1) of Non-Agricu|tural Tenancy Act Co-sharership in the land is material. A co-sharer in land becomes entitled to pre-empt under Section 24(1) of the Act if any portion of such land is transferred to stranger.
Md. Shah Alam Vs. Alhaj M.S. Shahifur Rahman & Ors. 11 BLT(HCD)-189.
The pre-emptor, his sister and brothers may be co-sharer in original S.A. Khantian but not after separation of Jama in mutation case. They are no longer remained co-sharers in the new mutation khatians, opned separately in favour of their respective names. As such the pre-emptor was not entitled to pre-empt the case land.
Hafez Abdul Karim Vs. Male Mohammad 8BLT (HCD)-144
Section-24(1) read with
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
A reference to Section 2(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure shows that a decree may be either preliminary or final. Explanation to Section 2(2) provides that “a decree is preliminary when further proceedings have to be taken before the suit can be completely dispose of. It is final when such adjudication completely disposes of the suit'”. In a suit for partition, after filing of the report along with the case map, field book, saham list by the Advocate Commissioner finaldecree takes effect and thereafter remains nothing to be done. In a pre-emption proceeding under Section 96 of the State Acquisition and Tenancy Act, the question of co-sharership in the tenancy is relavent. But the Section 24(1) of Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act the co-shareship in the land is maternal. In that view of the matter, the passing of” the final decree in a paretition suit finally determines the rights of hte co-sharers in the land. Hence, the application for the pre-emptor-respondents on the basis of co-shareship is not maintainable. [Para-14]
Md. Shafiuddin Chowdhury Vs. Abdul Karim & Ors. 8BLT (AD)-165
Section-24(l) read with
State Acquisition and Tenancy Act, 1950
There is no escape from the irresistible conclution that even if the land in the expression, ‘co-sharer in the land* in Section 24(1) of the Act. 1949 is not synonymous to a holding but conceiving of such land without reference to the word ‘co-sharer’ is neither feasible nor possible. And the word ‘co-sharer’ in the phrase ‘co-sharer in the land’ is the key to find whether the preemptor is entitled to preempt. A final decree passed in a partition suit or amicable partition though separates and divides the land for the purpose of possession but does not ipso facto terminate co-ownership in such land till subdivision of the holding and distribution of rents takes place only in accordance with law. Subdivision of a holding and distribution of rents may also take place in a revenue survey subsequent to the cadastral survey with or without the plot or plots divided into different smallplots. As stated above, such subdivision may also takes place at the instanceof one or more of the co-tenants of the holding in accordance with the provisions of S. 1 17 of the State Acquisition and Tenancy Act, 1950. Such subdivision always terminates the joint tenancy or more precisely co-sharership in the land, no matter whether the land is subdivided or separated or not and after such subdivision, the old co-owners of the holding in such land cannot be deemed to still continue as co-sharer in the land within the meaning of S.24(1)of the Act, 1949.
S.M. Nasirul Haque Vs. Omar Faruque Chowdhury & Ors 10 BLT (HCD)-318.