SK SARFUDDIN ALIAS SERFUDDIN Vs. SK MANHERUDDIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises out of the decision of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, west Dinajpur dated 15. 7. 76 in Title Appeal No. 18 of 1975 reversing the judgment and decree dated 31. 1. 75 passed by the learned Munsif,. Islampur in Title Suit Kb. 86 of 1972.

(2.) THE plaintiff-respondent instituted the said suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction inter alia on the allegations that the suit property originally belonged to Zarina who died leaving her husband Sujat Ali, son Sarfuddin (appellant-defendant no. 2) and two daughters bibi Amena and Bibi Begum who inherited the suit property and were in joint possession of tire same. Sujat Ali died leaving his another wife Fakani and his son (appellant)and two daughters by "his first wife and Zarima and five sons Jamaluddin, Reajuddin, Nasiruddin, Rustom Ali and pan Mohammad and two daughters Bibi Rafuna and Bibi Dhumo by his second wife and they all inherited the 4 as interest of Sujat Ali. The suit property was erroneously recorded in the name of defendant no. 2 alone and objection filed under Section 44 (2a) of the W. B. E. A Act by the other heirs of Sujat Ali was not upheld as the dependent no. 2 produced a false, manufactured and antedated unregistered deed of gift alleged to have been executed by Zarina on 15th Chaitra, 1341 B. S. in his favour claiming 16 as. interest by way of gift. On 2ci. 6. 67 the defendant no. 2 pur chased from his sister Bibi Amena some portion of the suit property and the other heirs of Zarina and Sujat Ali sold the disputed land to the plaintiffs and their predecessor interest Gul Mohantnad by registered kobalas and since then they ware in possession of the suit properly. On 15th pous, 1377 B. S. defendant no. 2 threatened to disposses the plaintiffs. Hence the suit.

(3.) APPELLANT-DEFENDANT no. 2 alone contested the suit by filling a written statement in which it was pleaded inter alia that Zarina made a gift of the suit property by a deed of gift to the defendant no. 2 who accepted the gift and had been in exclusive possession of the suit property for the last 30 years. . It was alleged that dependent no. 2 acquired independent title by continuous possession for more than 30 years.