MD. AFSAR ALI PRAMANIK Vs. MD. MOTALIB AKANDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This rule has been issued calling upon the opposite party No. 1 to show cause as to why the judgment and decree dated 31.08.2006 (decree signed on 06.09.2006) passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Natore, in Title Appeal No. 147 of 2001 affirming the judgment and decree dated 15.04.2001 (decree signed on 22.04.2001) passed by the learned Assistant Judge, Bagatipara, Natore, in Other Class Suit No. 90 of 1999 decreeing the suit, should not be set aside and/or pass such other or further order or orders as to this court may seem fit and proper.

(2.) Facts relevant for disposal of the rule as gathered from the revisional application are that the opposite party no.1 herein as plaintiff instituted Other Class Suit No. 90 of 1999 for declaration that the deed no. 5633 dated 18.09.1976 is illegal, void, collusive, fraudulent, not binding upon the plaintiff and also with a prayer for recovery of khas possession contending interalia that the suit schedule Ka land as described in the plaint belonged to Soiman Bewa who transferred the land in favour of plaintiff and defendant no.5 when they were minors by a deed of Heba bil Ewaz; the minors possessed the land through their father and legal guardian, defendant No.4, who transferred the land to defendant no.1 by a registered sale deed dated 15.06.1990 against the interest of minors; defendant no.1 transferred some portion of the land to defendant nos. 2 and 3; plaintiff after attaining majority came to learn about the said transfer on 15.06.1990; hence, the suit.

(3.) Defendant no.1 contested the suit by filing a written statement denying material allegations made in the plaint and contending interalia that the suit is not maintainable; barred by the principles of estoppel, waiver and acquiescence; defendant no.4 as legal guardian sold the land in question for legal necessity of the minors and now filed this case through his son with malafide intention; the suit is barred by limitation inasmuch as the sale deed was registered on 18.09.1976 but the suit instituted on 14.08.1990, long after 14 years from the date of execution and registration of the sale deed; plaintiff attained his majority long before and filed this suit after the statutory period of limitation; as such, the suit is liable to be dismissed.