Taher Ali being dead his heirs: Anowara Begum and others Vs. Ali Mohammad

Appellate Division Cases

(Civil)

PARTIES

Taher Ali being dead his heirs:  Anowara Begum and others………….Petitoners

-vs-

Ali Mohammad………… Respondent

JUSTICES

Md. Ruhul Amin J

Md. Tafazzul Islam J

Judgment Dated: 23rd August 2006

The State Acquistion and Tenancy Act, Section 143A

Plaintiff to avoid future complications is constrained to file the suit seeking declaration of title………………. (2)

As against the judgment and decree of the appellate Court defendants moved the High Court Division in revisional jurisdiction and the High Court Division discharged the Rule on the finding that no error has been committed by the Courts below in decreeing the

suit ……………….(6)

That there being no mis-reading or non-consideration of the evidence by the last Court of fact we are of the view the High Court Division did not commit any error in not interfering with the judgment and decree of the last Court of fact………………. (7)

Md. Aftab Hossain, Advocate-on-record …………….For the Petitioners

Md. Nawab Ali Advocate-on-record ……………………..For the Respondent

Civil Petition For Leave To Appeal No.758 of 2005

(From the Judgment and Order dated April 12, 2005 passed by the High Court Division

in Civil Revision No.2398 of 2003)

JUDGMENT

Md. Ruhul Amin J: This petition for leave to appeal is against the judgment dated April 12, 2005 of a Single Bench of the High Court Division in Civil Revision No.2398 of 2003 discharging the Rule obtained against the judgment and decree dated March 27, 2003 of the 1st Court of Additional District Judge, Narayanganj in Title Appeal No.38 of 2000 dismissing the same and thereby affirming the judgment and decree dated February 10, 2000 of the 1st Court of Subordinate Judge (now Joint District Judge), Narayanganj in Title Suit No.40 of 1981 decreeing the same. The suit was filed seeking declaration of title in respect of the land in suit.

2. The suit was filed stating, inter alia, that the plaintiff has purchased the land in suit from Reazuddin Mia, Harmuj Mia and Taju Mia by the kabala dated July 25, 1978 and got possession of the land in suit, that the R.S. khatian was wrongly prepared in the name of Kudrut Ali and Shafizuddin (Mafizuddin) instead of Reazuddin Mia, Harmuj Mia and Tazu Mia and that finally the said R.S. khatian was corrected in the background of the judgment passed in a case instituted as per provision of Section 143A of the State Acquisition and Tenancy Act on January 9, 1974, that defendants having failed to purchase the land from Reazuddin Mia, Harmuj Mia, and Taju Mia was out to disturb possession of the plaintiff and that on one occasion took away the paddy grown by the plaintiff. In that state of the matter plaintiff to avoid future complications is constrained to file the suit seeking declaration of title.

3. The suit was contested by defendant No.2 denying the material averments made in the plaint and stating, inter alia, that superior landlord upon auction purchase of the interest of the tenants by name Bakar South and Miah South settled the land to Alimuddin who died leaving daughter Joytun Bibi and she sold the land in suit to certain Mofizuddin and his brother Aftaruddin by the kabala dated August 27, 1945 and in their names S.A. khatian was prepared, that Aftaruddin sold 31 decimals of land out of the total quantity of 62 decimals of land to one Kudrut Ali on July 6, 1946 and said Kudrut Ali sold his purchased land to defendant No.l on February 5, 1964 and Mofizuddin sold his share to defendant Nos.2 and 3 on November 20, 1965, that plaintiff by his alleged purchase from Reazuddin Mia, Harmuj Mia and Tazu Mia did not acquire any title and interest in the land in suit and that the plaintiff has also no possession in the land in suit and as such the suit is liable to be dismissed.

4. The trial Court decreed the suit on the finding that the suit as framed is maintainable and not barred by limitation and that also not bad for defect of party, that the plaintiff has right, title, interest and possession in the land in suit.

5. On appeal the judgment and decree of the trial Court was affirmed on the finding that trial Court has correctly held that the plaintiff has title and possession in the land in suit and that the defendant has failed to establish his case.

6. As against the judgment and decree of the appellate Court defendants moved the High Court Division in revisional jurisdiction and the High Court Division discharged the Rule on the finding that no error has been committed by the Courts below in decreeing the suit.

7. We have heard the learned Advocateon-rccord and perused the materials as are in the paper book of the petition for leave to appeal. The learned Advocate-on record could not point out error of a kind in the judgment of the High Court Division or in the judgment and decree of the Courts below calling for interference. The finding of fact arrived at by the appellate Court and the trial Court being based on due consideration of the evidence and that there being no mis-reading or non-consideration of the evidence by the last Court of fact we are of the view the High Court Division did not commit any error in not interfering with the judgment and decree of the last Court of fact.

8. Accordingly the petition is dismissed.

Source : V ADC (2008),418

Disclaimer:

The information contains in this web-site is prepared for educational purpose. This site may be used by the students, faculties, independent learners and the learned advocates of all over the world. Researchers all over the world have the access to upload their writes up in this site. In consideration of the people’s participation in the Web Page, the individual, group, organization, business, spectator, or other, does hereby release and forever discharge the Lawyers & Jurists, and its officers, board, and employees, jointly and severally from any and all actions, causes of actions, claims and demands for, upon or by reason of any damage, loss or injury, which hereafter may be sustained by participating their work in the Web Page. This release extends and applies to, and also covers and includes, all unknown, unforeseen, unanticipated and unsuspected injuries, damages, loss and liability and the consequences thereof, as well as those now disclosed and known to exist.  The provisions of any state’s law providing substance that releases shall not extend to claims, demands, injuries, or damages which are known or unsuspected to exist at this time, to the person executing such release, are hereby expressly waived. However the Lawyers & Jurists makes no warranty expressed or implied or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product or process disclosed or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product process or service by trade name, trade mark, manufacturer or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation or favouring by the Lawyers & Jurists. The views and opinions of the authors expressed in the Web site do not necessarily state or reflect those of the Lawyers & Jurists. Above all, if there is any complaint drop by any independent user to the admin for any contents of this site, the Lawyers & Jurists would remove this immediately from its site.