TARAK CHANDRA MAJHI Vs. ATAHAR ALI HOWLADER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the plaintiff by leave is against the judgment and order dated July 23, 1999 of a Single Bench of the High Court Division in Civil Revision No. 2118 of 1993 making the Rule absolute upon reversing the judgment and decree dated October 28, 1992 of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Pirojpur in Title Appeal No. 106 of 1986 decreeing the suit upon setting aside the judgment and decree dated August 31, 1986 of the Court of Munsif (now Assistant Judge), Bahndaria Upazila, Pirojpur, in Title Suit No. 29 of 1985 dismissing the suit wherein declaration was sought to the effect that the order dated February 5, 1985 of the Land Appeal Board in Appeal Case No. 98 of 1984 illegal, void and not binding on the plaintiff.

(2.) Facts in the background of which the suit was filed, in short, are that Kamini Sundari Devi as owner of the land in suit on receiving Tk. 700/- out of total consideration of Tk. 1,000/- executed a bainapatra on 16th Magh, 1376 B.S. in favour of the plaintiff; that on the date of execution of the bainapatra Kamini Sundari Devi delivered possession of the land to the plaintiff; that subsequent to the agreement for sale with the plaintiff Kamini Sundari Devi sold the land to defendant No. 1 by a kabala dated March 12, 1970. The plaintiff filed Title Suit No.16 of 1970 seeking specific performance of contract for sale of land against Kamini Sundari Devi and others. The said suit was decreed in terms of compromise effected between the parties and the defendant No. 1 (of the instant suit) upon receiving Tk. 1, 500/- executed and registered a kabala on July 28, 1972 in favour of the plaintiff and made, over possession to him. Later on the defendant No.1 by forging signature of the scribe created an Ekrarnama showing the plaintiff as the first party and the defendant No.1 as the2nd party and on the basis thereof filed Miscellaneous Case No. 262 of 1982 under Section 95 of the State Acquisition and Tenancy Act, 1950 , in the office of the Upazila Revenue Officer, Bhandaria and that upon suppressing the notice of the said Miscellaneous Case and creating evidence as regard appearance of the plaintiff in the said Miscellaneous Case obtained an order on 21.10.1982 for reconveyance of the land in suit. The plaintiff having had came to know about the said order of the Upazila Revenue officer filed an application on January 2, 1983 in the Office of the Upazila Revenue officer and thereupon the Upazila Revenues officer directed the plaintiff to file appeal against his order in the office of the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Revenue, Pirojpur and the plaintiff filed an appeal, being No. 91 of 1982 in the office of the Additional Deputy Commissioner, (ADC) (Revenue), Pirojpur and the same was dismissed by the ADC. Then the plaintiff filed appeal No. 279 of 1983 in the office of the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Khulna, who allowed the appeal upon setting aside the order of the ADC and the Upazila Revenue Officer. The defendant No.1 then filed appeal No. 98 of 1984 before the Board of Land Administration and the Board set aside the order of the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Khulna and restored the order of the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Pirojpur and the Upazila Revenue Officer, Bhandaria, Pirojpur.

(3.) The plaintiff filed the suit contending primarily that at no point of time between him and the defendant No. 1 there was any agreement for reconveyance of the land and that he never executed any Ekrarnama to that effect in favour of defendant No. land that scribe of the plaintiff's kabala, whereby defendant No.1 in the light of the compromise decree in Suit No. 161 of 1970 transferred the land to the plaintiff, had never wrote the Ekrarnama, as claimed by the defendant No.1, between the plaintiff and the defendant No. 1 for reconveyance of the land which was the subject matter of hereinabove mentioned Title Suit.