GOLAM KIBRIA MOLLA Vs. ABDUR ROUF MOLLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two second appeals have been directed against the decisions in the first appeals reversing the judgments and the decrees passed in the original suits started by the plaintiff, Golam Kibria Molla.

(2.) The plaintiff's case is that he is one of the co-sharers in respect of the, disputed tank in plot No. 1976 under khatian No. 1596 of Mouza Jujarsaha, P. S. Panchla in the District of Howrah. The allegation is that Joherannessa Bibi, a co-sharer of his, sold a portion of her share in the disputed tank to third party outsiders, Golam Kader, Sadeque Molla and Golam Kuddus. The said Joherannessa Bibi sold another portion of her share in the disputed tank to another set of outsiders, namely, Abdul Rauf, Abdul Kalam, Abdul Salam, Abdul Mannan and Abdul Hannan. When the defendants came to catch fish in the disputed tank, the plaintiff for the first time came to know about the sales and in presence of several persons he wanted to exercise the right of pre-emption by purchasing the shares of Joherannessa Bibi by offering proper consideration. The defendant-purchasers refused to accept the offer of the plaintiff and therefore, the plaintiff filed two suits in respect of the two different kobalas against the purchasers. The two suits were heard analogously and by a common judgment, the learned trial court passed decrees in favour of the plaintiff. The defendants appealed and the two appeals were heard analogously and the learned Subordinate Judge who heard the appeals allowed the said appeals and dismissed the suits by setting aside the judgments and the decrees of the trial court. Against those two decisions, the two appeals under consideration have been heard analogously here also.

(3.) Mr. Ali, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the plaintiff-appellant has submitted that the learned appellate court below ought to have held that the formalities, particularly of the talab-i-ishhad, have been complied with as required by the Mahommedan Law and that the plaintiff was entitled to get decrees. Mr. Pal, the learned Advocate for the respondents, however, submits that the evidence in the instant case does not disclose that the essential formalities required under the Mahommeden Law have been followed and that in a case like this strict observance of the requirements of the Mahommedan Law is essential.