SRUESH CHANDRA BARMAN Vs. RAJ MOHAN BARMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This rule by the plaintiffs directed against judgment and decree dated 15.3.2006 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 3rd Court, Comilla allowing Title Appeal No.105 of 1998 reversing those dated 26.2.1998 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, now Joint District Judge, 2nd Court, Comilla in Title Suit No.51 of 1997.

(2.) Plaintiffs filed the suit for partition of the suit land with prayer for saham to the extent of 3.97 acres of land.

(3.) The case of the plaintiffs is that Panchananda was the original owner of 1st and 2nd schedule land of the plaint. Panchananda died leaving behind two sons, namely, Ram Narayan Mal and Ramlochan Mal before Chakala Rosanabad survey operation and during Rosanabad survey operation the said sons used to live together in a joint family and khatian No.112 in respect of 1st schedule land recorded the name of Ram Narayan Mal and khatian No.14 in respect of 2nd schedule land and suit schedule Nos.3 and 4 have been recorded in the name of Ram Lochan Mal. The suit schedule lands were not recorded in the khatian as per their share. Ram Narayan Mal died leaving one son, Aboy Charan and one daughter, Swarasati Debi Urshashi. Urshashi died leaving 3 sons, Guru Charan, Hari Charan and defendant No.30 as heirs. Abhoy Charan Mal got 8 annas share in the suit land in ejmali. Karunamaye, daughter of, Abhoy Charan, after marriage, used to live with her father. Abhoy Charan died leaving one daughter, Karunamoye and 2 grand sons, Rajani Kanta Mal and Kuluk Kanta Mal who became owner in the left out property of their grand father, Abhoy Charan and their names have been recorded in R.S. Khatian. The names of Rajani Kanta Mal and Kuluk Chandra Mal have not been recorded in revisional khatian but name of Kuluk Chandra has been wrongly recorded in revisional khatian. Rajani Kanta died leaving son plaintiff No.1 and Kuluk Chandra Mal died leaving son, plaintiff No.2. So, plaintiffs became owner and possessors in the left out property of Rajanai Kanta and Kuluk Chandra Mal and enjoyed in ejmali. The further case of the plaintiffs is that, during Chakala Roshanabad survey operation, Ram Lochan wrongly recroded 8 annas share i.e. 3rd schedule land of his two brothers in the name of his son, Orehan on taking advantage of oldness of Ram Narayan, the heirs of Karunamaye along with Bashi Ram and others, who are cousin brother of Kuranamay Mal owning 8 annas share but in ka schedule land, Karunamoye was owner of annas share. Kuluk Chandra Mal purchased 11 decimals of land from plot No.65 of 2nd schedule by deed dated 4.9.1981 and plaintiff No.2 purchased 8 decimals of land from plot No.65 of 2nd schedule from defendant No.2 by sale deed dated 1.9.1981. Plaintiff No.2 purchased 10 decimals of land from plot No.69/70 of 2nd schedule from Rafiqul Islam by sale deed dated 23.6.1992. Paranchandra Mal died leaving Bashee Ramchandra Mal, Goura Chandra Mal as residuary with another son, Ramlochan Mal and brother Ramnarayan and Rajchandra Mal. Gourachandra Mal died leaving one son. Bashee Rammal died leaving Rameshawr Mal, Jugeshawr Mal and Ramcharan Mal as residuary. Raseshwar died leaving Khetra Mohan Mal and defendant No.7, Usha. Jugeshwar Mal died leaving defendant Nos.1-3 as 3 sons. Ramcharan died leaving no son. Khetra Mohan Mal died leaving two sons, defendant Nos.4 and 5 and wife, defendant No.6 and they became owner of the property left by Rameshawr Mal. Plaintiffs have been owning and possessing the suit land. The defendants possessing more share than their actual share for which plaintiffs demanded partition but defendants refused, lastly on 5.8.1993, hence the suit.