ABDUL SAMAD SANFUI Vs. JOYNAL SANFUI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A suit for declaration of title and in the alternative for partition of immovable properties was dismissed by the Trial Court on November 15, 1997. The appeal therefrom was dismissed on October 8, 1999. The second appeal was admitted and two substantial questions of law were framed by an Order dated May 9, 2000.

(2.) Golam Sapui was the original owner of the suit property along with some other properties. Golam Sapui was survived by his son Rahamat Sapui and his daughter Golerjan Bibi. The suit property was erroneously recorded in the Revenue Survey Record of Rights in the name of Rahamat Sapui. On the basis of such record of rights, Rahamat Sapui refused to give the legitimate share to Golerjan Bibi. Golerjan Bibi thereafter, filed Title Suit No. 122 of 1963 in the 1st Court of Munsif, Baruipore for declaration of title and partition. In that suit Rahamat Sapui was Defendant No. 29. Rahamat Sapui appeared in the suit and entered into a compromise with Golerjan Bibi. Title Suit No. 122 of 1963 was disposed of as decreed on compromise. The compromise decree declared Golerjan Bibi to be the owner of 8 decimal of land in Khatian No. 37. Golerjan Bibi sold 8 decimal of land in Plot No. 136 of Khatian No. 37 to the plaintiff by a registered deed of conveyance dated March 12, 1963. Consequent to such purchase the plaintiff came into possession and constructed three rooms and planted several trees on such land. The plaintiff claimed to be possession of the said land and enjoying the usufructs of the trees. The plaintiff, therefore, instituted Title Suit No. 126 of 1995 against the descendants of Rahamat Sapui. The Trial Court and the Appeal Court having found against the plaintiff, the present second appeal was preferred where two substantial questions of law were framed.

(3.) The factum of the decree dated April 25, 1963 passed in Title Suit No. 122 of 1963 was an admitted fact. Such admission appeared lastly in the Order dated May 9, 2000 which framed two substantial questions of law. The Order dated May 9, 2000 was passed in presence of the parties.