HAZI SANJOB ALI Vs. HURMUJ ALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 24.07.2008 passed by the High Court Division in Civil Revision No.5392 of 2001 discharging the Rule and affirming the judgment and decree dated 14.08.2001 passed by the learned Additional District Judge in Title Appeal No. 69 of 1998 arising out of judgment and decree dated 28.10.1998 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, 1st Court, Sunamgonj in Title Suit No.441 of 1985 dismissing the suit.

(2.) The facts, in short, are that Hazi Sanjab Ali (since dead) as plaintiff instituted Title Suit No.13 of 1984 (which was later on renumbered as Title Suit No.441 of 1985) in the Court of the learned Subordinate Judge, 1st Court, Sylhet praying for a decree for declaration that he had right, title and interest in the suit land.

(3.) The facts of the plaintiffs' case were that the suit land along with other lands originally belonged to Rash Behari Nandi Chowdhury and his other co-shares in their maliki right and while they were in peaceful possession of the same they settled the suit land and other lands to Shahar Ullah and four others of Jhamok who executed a registered kabuliat in their favour on 30th As win, 1325 B.S. the land was originally laik patit in nature and the settlement holders reclaimed the same by spending huge amount of money and labour they also paid rent of the same to the zaminder shreesta. The plaintiffs since the time of their predecessors arc in peaceful possession of the same by growing paddy therein. The share of each of the settlement holders has been recorded separately in their names according to their specific possession during the last settlement operation in separate khatians. Among the settlement holders Shahar Ullah died leaving late Mahram Ullah predecessors of plaintiff Nos.4-8 and plaintiff Nos.1-3 as his surviving legal heirs who are in peaceful possession of the suit land till today. The suit plot had been recorded in the names of the heirs of Shahar Ullah but the area had been wrongly recorded as 1.58 acres in place of 2.18 acres of which fact the plaintiffs were not at all aware. Subsequently Moharam Ali died leaving behind plaintiff Nos.4-8 and pro-defendant Nos.13-15 as his surviving legal heirs. The plaintiffs have been holding and possessing the suit land by paying the rent thereof to the government. The plaintiff are all almost illiterate and the) have no knowledge or experience about settlement affairs and they were in firm behalf that the suit land had been rightly recorded in their names during the last settlement operation. Recently by the first week of Agrahayan, 1390 B.S. the defendants for the first time declared in the locality that the suit land has been recorded in their name and as such they are owners of the suit land. On scrutiny it was found that the suit land also had been recorded within khatian No. 106 in the name of the predecessors of the defendants.