LAWS(BANG)-2005-1-5

SUFIA KHATUN Vs. AMIN HOSSIN MONDAL

Decided On January 17, 2005
SUFIA KHATUN Appellant
V/S
Amin Hossin Mondal Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal of one of the plaintiffs, by leave, against the judgment and order dated February 5, 1997 of a Single Bench of the High Court Division in Civil Revision No. 59 of 1986 (Jessore)/Civil Revision No. 6061 of 1991 (Dhaka) making the Rule absolute and thereupon dismissing the suit upon reversing the judgment and decree dated September 3, 1985 of the Court of Additional District Judge, Chuadanga-Meherpur, Station at Chuadanga passed in Title Appeal No. 26 of 1984 affirming those of dated June 30, 1980 of the Court of Munsif (now Assistant Judge) Chuadanga, passed in Title Suit No. 541 of 1970 decreeing the same. The suit was filed seeking declaration of title and confirmation of possession in the land in suit and for further declaration that the decree obtained in Title Suit No. 616 of 1969 of the Court of Munsif, Chuadanga is fraudulent, collusive and not binding upon the plaintiff.

(2.) Facts, in short, are that the land in suit belonged to Bishnupada and he granted power of Attorney to Danesh Mondal as regard the property in suit and the said attorney transferred the land in suit on December 10, 1953 to his wife defendant No. 3, Parichan Bibi who then transferred the land in suit on June 6, 1963 to the plaintiff No. 1 and the plaintiff No. 1 sold the land to the plaintiff No. 2 Sufia Khatun. It is the specific case of the Plaintiff No. 1 that defendant Nos. 1 and 2 had and have no right, title, interest and possession in the land in suit and the judgment obtained in Title suit No. 616 of 1969 relating to the land in suit was collusive, fraudulent and not binding upon the plaintiff.

(3.) The suit was contested by the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 by filing joint written statement denying the material averments made in the plaint taking the general pleas that the suit as framed was not maintainable and the plaintiffs have no cause of action to file the suit. The case of the contesting defendants was that defendant No. 1 took settlement of the land from Bishnupada and got possession, that the land was wrongly recorded in the name of the defendant No. 3 Parichan Bibi and as such Title Suit No. 616 of 1969 was filed and the same was decreed on compromise in terms of the solehnama, that defendant No. 3 earlier filed Title Suit No. 199 of 1962 against the defendant No. 1 and others seeking recovery of possession in respect of the land in suit but the same was dismissed for default. It was also the case of the defendants that Bishnupada did not grant any general Power of Attorney to Danesh Mondal, that Danesh Mondal and his wife defendant no. 3 had never possessed the land in suit, that plaintiff No. 1 was the lisencee of the defendant No. 1 in a portion of the suit property and the plaintiff No. 1 has brought the suit on the basis of fabricated documents and as such the suit is liable to be dismissed.