Sruesh Chandra Barman and others Vs. Raj Mohan Barman and others, 1 LNJ (2012) 539

Case No: Civil Revision No. 1975 of 2006

Judge: Sharif Uddin Chaklader,

Court: High Court Division,,

Advocate: Mr. Tobarak Hossain ,Mr. H.R. Nandi ,,

Citation: 1 LNJ (2012) 539

Case Year: 2012

Appellant: Sruesh Chandra Barman and others

Respondent: Raj Mohan Barman and others

Subject: Remand of a Case,

Delivery Date: 2011-05-16

HIGH COURT DIVISION
(Civil Revisional Jurisdiction)
 
Sharif Uddin Chaklader, J.

Judgment
16.05.2011
 
Suresh Chandra Barman and others
….Petitioners
Vs.
Raj Mohan Barman and others.
…Opposite Parties
 
Code of civil Procedure (V of 1908)
Section 107
The findings of the appellate court are not proper findings of a judgment of reversal. The appeal is sent on remand to the court of appeal below to arrive at proper findings as per section 107 of the Code. The appellate court should give a chance to both the parties, if they want to adduce additional evidence in support of their respective cases. …(11 and 12).
 
Mr. Tobarak Hossain Advocate
Mr. Mohammad Ali Azam
---For the petitioner. 
Mr. H.R. Nandi Advocate
Mrs. Lily Rani Saha Advocate
---For opposite party No. 2

Civil Revision No. 1975 of 2006
 
JUDGMENT
Sharif Uddin Chaklader, J.
 
      This rule by the plaintiffs directed against judgment and decree dated 15.3.2006 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 3rd Court, Comilla allowing Title Appeal No.105 of 1998 reversing those dated 26.2.1998 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, now Joint District Judge, 2nd Court, Comilla in Title Suit No.51 of 1997.
 
2.   Plaintiffs filed the suit for partition of the suit land with prayer for saham to the extent of 3.97 ½ acres of land.
 
3.   The case of the plaintiffs is that Panchananda was the original owner of 1st and 2nd schedule land of the plaint. Panchananda died leaving behind two sons, namely, Ram Narayan Mal and Ramlochan Mal before Chakala Rosanabad survey operation and during Rosanabad survey operation the said sons used to live together in a joint family and khatian No.112 in respect of 1st schedule land recorded the name of Ram Narayan Mal and khatian No.14 in respect of 2nd schedule land and suit schedule Nos.3 and 4 have been recorded in the name of Ram Lochan Mal. The suit schedule lands were not recorded in the khatian as per their share. Ram Narayan Mal died leaving one son, Aboy Charan and one daughter, Swarasati Debi Urshashi. Urshashi died leaving 3 sons, Guru Charan, Hari Charan and defendant No.30 as heirs. Abhoy Charan Mal got 8 annas share in the suit land in ejmali. Karunamaye, daughter of, Abhoy Charan, after marriage, used to live with her father. Abhoy Charan died leaving one daughter, Karunamoye and 2 grand sons, Rajani Kanta Mal and Kuluk Kanta Mal who became owner in the left out property of their grand father, Abhoy Charan and their names have been recorded in R.S. Khatian. The names of Rajani Kanta Mal and Kuluk Chandra Mal have not been recorded in revisional khatian but name of Kuluk Chandra has been wrongly recorded in revisional khatian. Rajani Kanta died leaving son plaintiff No.1 and Kuluk Chandra Mal died leaving son, plaintiff No.2. So, plaintiffs became owner and possessors in the left out property of Rajanai Kanta and Kuluk Chandra Mal and enjoyed in ejmali. The further case of the plaintiffs is that, during Chakala Roshanabad survey operation, Ram Lochan wrongly recroded 8 annas share i.e. 3rd schedule land of his two brothers in the name of his son, Orehan on taking advantage of oldness of Ram Narayan, the heirs of Karunamaye along with Bashi Ram and others, who are cousin brother of Kuranamay Mal owning 8 annas share but in ka schedule land, Karunamoye was owner of ½ annas share. Kuluk Chandra Mal purchased 11 decimals of land from plot No.65 of 2nd schedule by deed dated 4.9.1981 and plaintiff No.2 purchased 8 decimals of land from plot No.65 of 2nd schedule from  defendant No.2 by sale deed dated 1.9.1981. Plaintiff No.2 purchased 10 decimals of land from plot No.69/70 of 2nd schedule from Rafiqul Islam by sale deed dated 23.6.1992. Paranchandra Mal died leaving Bashee Ramchandra Mal, Goura Chandra Mal as residuary with another son, Ramlochan Mal and brother Ramnarayan and Rajchandra Mal. Gourachandra Mal died leaving  one son. Bashee Rammal died leaving Rameshawr Mal, Jugeshawr Mal and Ramcharan Mal as residuary. Raseshwar died leaving Khetra Mohan Mal and defendant No.7, Usha. Jugeshwar Mal died leaving defendant Nos.1-3 as 3 sons. Ramcharan died leaving no son. Khetra Mohan Mal died leaving two sons, defendant Nos.4 and 5 and wife, defendant No.6 and they became owner of the property left by Rameshawr Mal. Plaintiffs have been owning and possessing the suit land. The defendants possessing more share than their actual share for which plaintiffs demanded partition but defendants refused, lastly on 5.8.1993, hence the suit.
 
4.   Defendant Nos.1, 2 and 3 contested the suit by filing written statement. It is the case of the defendants that Panchananda was in possession of and owner of the land of 1st and 2nd schedule of plaint and he has no title in 2nd and 3rd schedule of the plaint. Panchannanda died leaving 2 sons, namely, Ram Narayan and Ram Lochan as his heirs who became owner and in possession of the land of 1st and 2nd schedule of the plaint. Ram Narayan and Ram Lochan used to live together in a joint family and Ram Narayan Mal being 'korta' of the family, and Chakla Roshanabad Khatian No.112 and 114 were prepared in the name of Ram Narayan in respect of 1st and 2nd schedule land but both of them possessed equally. Abhoy Charan and Swarasati were not sons of Ram Narayan who had no son. Ram Narayan died leaving behind brother, Ram Lochan as heir and Ram Lochan got land of 1st and 2nd schedule by inheritance from his father and brother. 3rd schedule land of khatian No.C.R.155 was prepared in the name of Ramsum Dardas, Bashee Rammal, Charan, Gongaram and Kashiram, Nandaramal and son of Ram Lochan as owner and possessor of 4th schedule of R.S. khatian No.2 which was prepared and published in the name of Pancharanda and his residuary had no title in the land of 3rd and 4th schedule. Haracharan Mal died unmarried during the life time of his father. Thereafter, Ram Lochan became owner and possessor in 8 annas share of 1st, 2nd and 4th schedule land and said Ram Lochan died leaving behind 3 sons, Bashuram Mal, Ramchandra Mal and Gouchandra Mal who inherited the property of their father, they purchased 8 annas land from 4th schedule from Nandarampal in the name of Bashirampal and possessed. Even they purchased part of the pond and bank of the pond in plot No.10-11 to 3rd schedule and became owner and possessor therein. In this way, Bashiram, Razchandra and Gouree Chandra became owner and possessor in the land of 1st to 4th schedule by purchase and inheritance and they sold aforesaid land of schedule 1st   to 4th to Rameshawar and Jaggeshwar. Thereafter, Rameshawar and Jaggeshwar purchased 1st to 4th schedule land by deed dated 23rd Bhadra, 1332 B.S. and S.A. khatian prepared in their names. Ramcharan died leaving behind wife, Kanjabasheedas and she became owner and was in possession of the property left by Ramchandra Mal. Krishna Chandra Barman created false deed in respect of 56 decimals of land of plot No.72 and 11 from Kanjabasheedas. Kanjabasheedas did not execute such deed and she had no need/necessity to sell aforesaid 56 decimals of land to pay her husband’s debt and own debt of Tk.3,000.00. She sold 72 decimal of land to Krishna Mohan for paying her husband’s and own loan. Plaintiff Nos.1-2 purchased 5 decimals of land from Krishnamohan’s purcha-sed land by sale deed dated 16.9.1980. Plaintiff No.2 purchased 8 decimals of land from defendant No.2 by deed dated 1.9.1981. Before the plaintiff, Gurucharan, Haricharan Rajmohan, Ummasee Swarasatee and Avoy Charan had no ownership and possession because Ram Narayan had no residuary named Karonamayee. Kuluk and Rajanee had fish business and were movable men, allowed Basheeram lived in Bashiram’s land and died leaving behind plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 in the dwelling hut. Plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 had no title in the suit land. They created a false gift deed No.90 dated 12.1.1924 and forged the name in S.A. khatian to grab the property.
 
5.   Trial Court framed 3 issues, whether the suit is maintainable in its present form, whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get decree as prayed for and whether plaintiffs entitled to get other reliefs.
 
6.   Plaintiff examined 3 P.Ws. and defendants examined 3 D.Ws. and produced some documents. Learned Subordinate Judge decreed the suit. Defendant Nos.1 – 3 preferred Title Appeal No.105 of 1998 which was heard, on transfer by the learned Additional District Judge, 3rd Court, Comilla who allowed the appeal, reversed the findings of the trial Court and this rule is from that judgment.
 
7.   Mr. Tobarak Hossain, learned Advocate, appearing for the plaintiff-petitioners, submits that, the judgment and decree passed by the Court of appeal below is not proper judgment of reversal.   The learned judge of the appellate court did not advert to the findings arrived at by the learned Subordinate Judge on consideration of the materials on record. Learned Advocate further submits that, trial Court on consideration of the evidence on record found plaintiffs' title and possession in 3.97 ½ acres of land but this finding of the learned Subordinate judge was neither address to nor adverted by the learned Additional District Judge while allowing the appeal. Learned Advocate further submits that learned Subordinate Judge after consideration of the materials on record in respect of 2nd schedule land made findings to the effect that:        
      ২য় তপছিলের ভূমি হইতে ২৭ শতক হুকুম দখল করিয়াছে, ঐ ২৭ শতক এর মধ্যে ১৩  শতক বাদীগনের অংশ হইতে বাদ যাইবে .............. ৪র্থ তপছিলের ভূমি ১১ শতক হুকুুম দখল করা হইয়াছে তাহা হইতে বাদীগনের অংশ ৫   শতক বাদ যাইবে.........."

In reversing the judgment of the learned subordinate judge learned Additional District judge did not make any discussion of the evidence on record. Learned Advocate further submits that judgment of the appellate Court having passed without considering the materials on record, as such, the appeal should be remanded back to the Court of appeal below so that the learned Judge of the Appellate Court could pass the judgment on reference to the evidence on record.
 
8.   Mr. H. R. Nandi along with Mrs. Lily Rani Saha, learned Advocates, appearing for the opposite parties, on the other hand submits that, judgment passed by the Court of appeal below as Final Court of fact should not be disturbed as the judgment passed by the learned judge of Court of appeal below was passed legally on reference to the evidence on record. Learned Advocate further submits that if the appeal be remanded to the Court of appeal below, then, the learned Advocate submits, that a direction should be given to the learned Additional District Judge to consider the case of the parties by taking additional evidence as per section 107 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
 
9.   I am of the view that the judgment of the Appellate Court is not a proper judgment of reversal. Let me find the relevant portion of the judgment. At the out set it may be mentioned that the judgment of the appellate court is not in proper language. Let me quote the relevant portion of the judgment;
      উল্লেখিত অবস্থায় দেখব যায় আপীল পর্যায়ে শুনানীকালে রেসপনডেন্ট বাদীপক্ষ মোট ১.৩৪ একর ভূমি হুকুম দখলের কারণে আরজির তপছিল থেকে কর্তন করে উক্ত ভূমি বিবাদীগনের অংশ থেকে বাদ যাবে বলে তাদের ২৮/২/০৫ ইং তারিখের প্রদত্ত দরখাস্তে উল্লেখ করেছে। কিন্তু এই ১.৩৪ একর ভূমি কোন কোন বিবাদীর অংশ থেকে বাদ যাবে কিংবা ছাহাম প্রার্থী ১১/১২/১৩(ক)-১৩(খ) পর্যন্ত বিবাদীদের অংশ থেকে বাদ যাবে কি না কিংবা তাদের অংশ অক্ষুন্ন থাকবে কিনা এসব বিষয়ে দাখিলকৃত দরখাস্তে বাদী রেসপন্ডেন্ট পক্ষ সুনিদিষ্ট ভাবে কিছুই উল্লেখ করেনি।
      অপরদিকে বিবাদী আপীল্যান্ট পক্ষ ২২/১১/০৫ ইং তারিকে দরখাস্ত দিয়ে আরজির তপছিল ভুক্ত সর্বমোট ৩.১৭ একর ভুমি হুকুম দখল হয়েছে বলে পরিস্কার ভাবে উল্লেখ করেছে। বাদীপক্ষ মোট ১.৩৪ একর ভূমি হুকুম দখলের কথা স্বীকার করলেও বিবাদী আপীল্যান্ট  পক্ষের  দাবী মতে মোট ৩.১৭ একর হুকুম দখলের বিষয়টি সম্পর্কে সুস্পষ্ট কোন বক্তব্য দেননি। ফলে দেখা যঅয়  এই মামলার বন্টন যোগ্য মোট ৮.২৩ একর ভূমির মধ্যে বাদীপক্ষ বলেছে ১.৩৪ একর ভূমি হুকুম দখল হয়েছে আবার বিবাদীপকষ বলেছে হুকুম দখলকৃত ভূমির পরিমান ৩.১৭ একর। বিজ্ঞ নিম্ন আদালত হুকুম দখলকৃত ভূমি সম্পর্কে উভয় পক্ষের উল্লেখিত বাদীর উপর দৃশ্যত কোন আলোচনা করেননি। কারণ বিচারের সময বাদীপক্ষ যেমন মোট ১.৩৪ একর ভূমি হুকুম দখলকৃত বলে আদালতে তথ্য প্রদান করেননি ঠিক তেমনি বিবাদী আপীল্যান্ট পক্ষ তাদের দাবী মতে ৩.১৭ একর হুকুম দখল হওয়ার বিষয়টি বিজ্ঞ নিম্ন আদালতে উথথাপন করেননি।
      এ রুপ পরিস্থিতিতে স্পষ্টতঃ দেখা যায় আরজীর তপছিলের ভূমি থেকে ৩.১৭ একর না কি ১.৩৪ একর ভূমি হুকুম দখল হয়েছে তা নিরুপন না করে তপছিল বর্ণিত ভূমি বন্টনের যে প্রাথমিক ডিক্রী বিজ্ঞ নিম্ন আদালত প্রদান করেছেন তা মোঠেই যথাযথও সঠিক হয়নি। যদি বাদী রেসপন্ডেন্ট পক্ষ মুল মামলায় আরজীর তপছিল ভূক্ত ভূমি থেকে গোমতী নদীর বাধের জন্য হুকুম দখলকৃত ভূমির সঠিক পরিমান বাদ দিয়ে তাদের দাবীকৃত প্রাপ্য অংশ দাবী করতেন এবং তা যদি সাক্ষ্য প্রমানের মাধ্যমে প্রতিষ্ঠিত  করতে পারতেন তা হলে এই মুল বাটোয়ারা মামলাটির বিচার কার্যক্রম সঠিক হয়েছে বলে গন্য করা যেত। কিন্তু তারা তা না কারয় স্বাভাবিক ভাব্রেজীর পিছিলে বর্ণিত বন্টনযোগ্য ভূমির মধ্যে গরমিল দেখা দিয়েছে।
     বাদীগনের পুর্ববতীমার নারায়ন মালের নামীয় ১ম তপছিলে বর্ণিত সম্পৃক্তির ১১২নং খতিয়ান এবং ২য় তপছিলের বর্ণিত সম্পত্তির ১৪নং খতিয়ানের সত্যায়িত নকলপ্রদ-ঘ(১) (ডি)(১) আদালতে দাখিল করলেও রাম লোচনেরনোমীয় ৩য় ও ৪র্থ তপছিলের বর্ণিত সম্পত্তির যথাত্র্রমে ২০৩ ও ১৩নং খতিয়ানের কোন সত্যায়িত নকল তারা আদালতে দাখিল করে নাই। ফলে দেখা যায় বাদীগনের পূর্ববর্তী রাম নারায়ন এবং রাম লোচন আরজীর ১ম-৪র্থ তপছিলের ভূমিতে তুল্যাংশে মালিক থাকার দাবীটি বাদীগন প্রমান করতে সমর্থন হয়ননি। আর, এস, খতিয়ানের একটি অতি পুরাতনও গ্রহনযোগ্য খতিয়ান এর এমিট্রকে সাক্ষ্য প্রমান দিয়ে অশুদ্ধ ও ভুল হিসেবে প্রমানিত না হওয়া পর্যন্ত এই ধরনের খতিয়ানকে আইনতঃ অশুদ্ধ ও ভ্রমাত্মক দাবী করার কোন সুযোগ নেই।
 
10. Here I refer to provision of Order XLI Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure which is as follows:

"The judgment of the appellate Court shall be in writing and shall state-
(a)        the points for determination;
(b)        the decision thereon;
(c )       the reasons for the decision; and,
(d)        where the decree appealed from is reversed or varied, the relief to which the appellant is entitled;
        and shall, at the time that it is pronounced, be signed and dated by the judge or by the judges concurring therein."
 
11. On reference to the entire judgment of the Court of appeal below mentioned herein before, I am of the view that the findings of the learned judge are not proper findings of a judgment of reversal. I am of the view that such type of judgment cannot be sustainable in law but on the facts of the given case I am of the view that appeal should be remanded to the Court of appeal below so as to pass a proper judgment on reference to materials on record and on consideration of the provision of section 107 of the Code of Civil Procedure which is as follows:
 
"107. (1) Subject to such conditions and limitations as may be prescribed, an Appellate Court shall have power-
(a)    to determine a case finally;
(b)   to remand a case;
(c)    to frame issues and refer them for trial;
(d)   to take additional evidence or to require such evidence to be taken.
(2) …    …    …"
 
12.   I am of the view that learned Additional District Judge to arrive at a proper findings, as per section 107 of the Code of Civil Procedure, should give a chance to both the parties, plaintiff and defendant, if they wanted to adduce additional evidence in support of their respective cases then, as per provision of law, should allow them to do. I find substance in this rule.
 
13.   In the result, this rule is made absolute. No costs.
 
14.   The Judgment and decree dated 15.3.2006 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 3rd Court, Comilla in Title Appeal No. 105 of 1998 is set aside. Title Appeal No. 105 of 1998 is sent back to the learned Additional District Judge, 3rd Court, Comilla to dispose of the appeal in accordance with the observations made in the body of the judgment. Learned Additional District Judge, 3rd Court, Comilla is further directed to dispose of the appeal within 4(four) months from the date of receipt of this order.
 
Send down the lower Court records at once.
 
Communicate this order at once.
 
Ed.