NURUN NESSA Vs. BABAR ALI BEPARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by the heirs of the original plaintiff and the question of law involved is of some public importance in that, whether a power of attorney executed in India and authenticated by a Magistrate in India and not authenticated by any authorised officer of Diplomatic Mission of the then Pakistan in Calcutta is a valid document in Bangladesh which could be acted upon. Facts in short are, that the plaintiff Haji Abdul Karim migrated to the then East Pakistan in the latter part of 1357 B.S. The suit lands originally belonged to Bhattacharjees who orally settled the 'Ka' schedule lands and another plot of land to the plaintiff's son Abdul Jabbar and allowed the plaintiff to possess the 'Kha schedule land by an amalnama dated 20th Bhadra, 1359 B.S. and that on 19.2.58 Abdul Jabbar sold the land to one Siman Sardar from whom the plaintiff purchased on 22.9.58. Bhattacharjees also made a contract to sell the 'Kha' schedule and other lands to the plaintiff, but thereafter the Bhattacharjees went to India and as they could not return, by a General Power of Attorney dated 9.4.56 (Ext.4) they appointed one Ansaruddin Biswas as their attorney who subsequently executed a deed of sale in favour of the plaintiff on 8.10.56 and that the plaintiff thus became the owner of the suit lands and was possessing it, but it having been wrongly recorded in the name of the defendant-respondents, he was compelled to file the suit.

(2.) The defendant-respondents 1 to 11 excepting the respondent 2 contested the suit by filing a joint written statement admitting that the suit lands belonged to Bhattacharjees; but alleging, inter alia, that the Bhattacharjees settled the suit lands to the defendants 1, 3 and 4 who thereafter sold a portion thereof to the other contesting defendants and that they were possessing the land.

(3.) With regard to the 'Ka' schedule land, the plaintiff claimed that he took settlement from the Bhattacharjees by Exts 1 and 1 (a) which have been concurrently held by the Courts below that they were invalid and the plaintiff did not acquire any title to them and no leave was granted on the issue.