RAJJABALI KHAN TALUKDAR Vs. FAKU BIBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from an order of the Subordinate Judge, 1 Court, Bakarganj, reversing an order of the Munsif, 3 Court at Patuakhali, on an application made under Section 144, Civil P.C. The facts are somewhat complicated but ignoring those that are not relevant at the present stage they may be stated thus quite shortly.

(2.) One Khatejan Bibi and others who, for the sake of brevity may be called the petitioners in view of the application that was made by them under Section 144, Civil P.C., are holders of certain shares in a raiyati holding which was purchased in execution of a rant decree by the opposite parties Nos. 1 to 11 who are co-sharer landlords, a 12 annas share being purchased jointly by the opposite parties Nos. 1 to 10 and the remaining 4 annas share by the opposite party No. 11. After ,their purchase, the opposite parties Nos. 1 to 10 gave a lease of their 12 annas purchased share to one Rajjabali: Rajjabali was resisted by the petitioners in his attempt to take possession and he then instituted a Title Suit No. 105 of 1922 against the petitioners and their cosharers in the holding, and having, obtained an ex parte decree on 10 January 1923 obtained delivery of possession of the lands of the entire holding on 21st February 1923. The petitioners then applied for setting aside the ex parte decree and obtained an order for re-hearing of. the suit, and eventually the suit was dismissed for default on 16th June 1925. The sale held in pursuance of the ex parte decree was also sat aside but with that we need not concern ourselves. Rajjabali had in the meantime sublet the lands to opposite parties Nos. 13 to 23. Prom the judgment of the Subordinate Judge it only appears that he had done so after instituting his suit, but the appellants say, and this is not controverted, that ha had done so after obtaining possession in execution of the decree; and we shall decide the case on that footing. After the suit was dismissed as aforesaid, proceedings under Section 145, Criminal P.C., arose as the result of which the possession of opposite parties Nos. 12 to 23, that is to say, of Rajjabali and his sublessees was declared. Interim receivers had been appointed during the pendency of the said proceedings and they had taken possession under an order made by the Court.

(3.) In 1927, the date is not material, the petitioners made the present application for restoration of possession in the raiyati holding. They impleaded, as opposite parties to the application, opposite parties Nos. 1 to 11, the cosharer landlords, No. 12, the aforesaid Rajjabali, Nos. 13 to 23, the sublessees of the said Rajjabali and Nos. 24 to 41 their own cosharers in the holding.