AMIR HOSSAIN HOWLADER Vs. MOHAMMAD ALI HOSSAIN FAKIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On an application under Section 115(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, the defendant petitioner challenged the legality and propriety of the impugned judgment and decree dated 27.09.2001, passed by the learned Sub-ordinate Judge, Artharin Adalat, Barisal, in Title Appeal No. 192 of 2000, reversing the judgment and decree dated 27.08.2000, passed by the learned Assistant Judge, Banaripara, Barisal, in Title Suit No. 04 of 1998, dismissing the suit.

(2.) The opposite party, as plaintiff, filed a Title Suit No. 4 of 1998 against the defendant petitioners, in the Court of Assistant Judge, Banaripara, Barisal for declaration that the order dated 23.7.1997 passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue) Barisal, in Rin Salishi Appeal No. 443 of 1990-1991 in respect of the Schedule Ka land of the plaint is illegal, null and void, fraudulent and without jurisdiction and as such the same is not binding upon the plaintiff.

(3.) The case of the plaintiff in short is that the plaintiff purchased 88 decimals of land by kabala dated 10.4.1984 at a consideration of Tk. 20,000/- from the defendant No. 1 and while possessing the said land mortgaged the same in Agrani Bank on 4.7.1988. The defendant No. 1 filed the Rin Shalishi Case No. 189 of 1989-1990, after promulgation of Rin Salishi Ain in 1989, claiming the property on the ground that he has got no land excess to 2 acres. The Rin Salishi Board upon hearing both the parties dismissed the said case on 23.4.1991 finding that the defendant No. 1 has got the quantum of land excess to 2 acres. Being aggrieved by the said order defendant No. 1 preferred Rin Shalishi Appeal No. 443 of 1990-1991 before the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue), as appellate Court, Barisal. The Additional Deputy Commissioner (Rev) after hearing the parties allowed the appeal on 23.07.1997, holding that the order of Rin Salishi Board is illegal, and without jurisdiction. It is further stated in the plaint that the claim of the defendant No. 1 is not tenable in the eye of law and a false claim. He has earlier received consideration money as recited in the deed of kabala and sold the land as such the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue) passed the order on 23.7.97 illegally and hence, the suit.