FARID MIAH Vs. KUTUBUDDIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the plaintiff following leave is from Judgment and Decree dated 16 February, 1984, passed by a Single Judge of the High Court Division (at Sylhet) in Second Appeal No. 554 of 1978 allowing the same.

(2.) The plaintiff brought Title Suit No. 301 of 1972 in the First Court of the Assistant Judge, Sylhet, for a declaration that the order of cancellation of settlement of land dated 18.9.72 passed by the Assistant Custodian, Enemy Property, Sylhet, Defendant No. 2 in EP Case No. 11/70-71 was void, illegal, etc. and also for permanent injunction. His case briefly, is that the suit land was declared as enemy property by Defendant No. 2 in EP Case No. 11/70-71 as the owners thereof, namely Suresh Chandra Bhattacharjee, Bankesh Chandra Bhattacharjee and Poresh Chandra Bhattacharjee left for India for good. The plaintiff is a co-sharer of the suit land and so he applied for taking settlement of the same and was allowed settlement by defendant No. 2 by his Memo No. 290 dated 18.5.72. Thus he has been in possession of the suit land on payment of rent. But defendant No. 2 having been influenced by defendants Nos. 3, 4 and 5 illegally cancelled the plaintiffs settlement on 18.9.72 on the allegation that he is a Government Servant and so he is not entitled to get any settlement of enemy property. But the plaintiff is not a Government Servant. After cancellation of his settlement, the defendants Nos. 3, 4 and 5 threatened the plaintiff with dispossession. Hence the suit.

(3.) Defendants Nos. 1 to 5 contested the suit by filing two separate written statements. Their common case, briefly, is that the plaintiff has got no right, interest or possession in the suit land. He is not a co-sharer of the suit land which is an enemy property. He is a Government Servant. But he obtained the settlement of the suit land upon misrepresentation of fact and practising fraud, and so, his lease was rightly cancelled by defendant No. 2. Then the property was leased out to defendants Nos. 3 to 5 who are co-sharers of the suit land and defendants Nos. 3 to 5 have been in possession thereof. Their settlement was rightly granted by defendant No. 2. The cancellation of the plaintiffs' lease was made legally after hearing both sides. The plaintiff filed this suit on false allegations.