SHEIKH AHMED SHOWDAGAR Vs. MOSTAFIZUR RAHMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the plaintiffs, by leave, is against the judgment and decree dated August 2, 1994 in First Appeal No. 717 of 1991 of a Division Bench of the High Court Division allowing the appeal upon reversing the judgment and decree dated July 25, 1989 of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Patiya, Chittagong, in other suit No. 29 of 1986 decreeing the same. The plaintiffs filed the suit seeking declaration of title, confirmation of possession and further relief of permanent injection in respect of 8 kanis, 10 gandas and 2 karas of land described in the schedule attached to the plaint. The plaintiffs claimed the said land by purchase in between the period February 1982 and November 1984.

(2.) Facts, in short, are that one Ahmed Ali said to have been the owner of the land claiming which plaintiffs have filed the suit. In the revenue record of different times Ahmed Ali's name was recorded. Ahmed Ali settled six kanis of land by the ext.1 dated June 1, 1891 to Bashir Mohammed and Kasir Mohammad. The land of this Patta was described by boundaries. The said settlement holders got the possession. Ahmed Ali died leaving 2 sons Basarat Ali and Aju Meah. It is the case of the plaintiffs that Aju Meah by amicable arrangement with the brother became owner of 1 kani 5 Gandas of land and remained in exclusive possession of the same. Aju Meah by Patta ext. 1 (ka) dated August 30, 1928 settled 7 kanis, 5 gandas of land to Nasarat Ali son of Bashir Mohammad, Ali Hossain son of Karsir Mohammad and others admitting the previous Patta dated June 1, 1981 regarding 6 kanies of land executed by Ahmed Ali, father of Aju Meah. Basarat Ali died leaving a son by same Md. Shanchi and two daughters. Aju Meah and heirs of Basharat Ali received rent from Nasarat Ali and others by granting registered and unregistered receipts and thereby they admitted Nasarat Ali and others as tenants under them. The further case of the plaintiffs was that there were fellow lands and jungle land adjacent to the pattani land and the pattan holders and their heirs made said excess land, "Gunjaish" fit for cultivation and thereby the pattan holders had been possessing land more than their pattani land for more than the statutory period of limitation on payment of rent to their landlord. The plaintiffs purchased the land from the heirs of pattan holders in whose name S. A. record was prepared and that after purchase of the land in suit from the recorded tenants while they were owning and possessing the same through bargadars. The defendant Nos. 1-6 threatened to dispossess them from the land in suit in April 1986

(3.) The suit was contested by defendant Nos. 1 and 4 as well as by the added defendant Nos. 7-10 by filing separate set of written statements.