MURARI MOHAN SARDER Vs. BANGLADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Murari Mohan Sarder and ten other plaintiff petitioners seek leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated 17.01.2005 passed by a Single Bench of the High Court Division in Civil Revision No. 3102 of 1993 discharging the rule.

(2.) Facts as revealed in the leave petition, in short, are that the plaintiffs filed Title Suit No.421 of 1975 in the 2nd Court of the learned Assistant Judge, Satkhira for declaration of title to the suit properly and permanent injunction against the defendant respondent Nos. 1 to 3 stating, inter alia, that the declaration of the property as enemy property is illegal, void and not binding upon them and that the suit property belonged to Balai Sardar and others to the extent of 2 annas share each, Nilambar and Bhupan Charan had 4 annas share each and that there being no embankment in the area where the suit land is situated the recorded tenants failed to produce any crops and as such could not pay rent to the landlord and that except Bhupati Charan, predecessor of the plaintiff Nos.1-2 and other tenants surrendered their right in favour of the landlord in 1351 B.S. and Bhupati Charan took settlement of their share in 1352 B.S. and was in possession of the suit property through cultivation but the suit property was wrongly recorded in the name of Genoda Sundari Ghosh and there being a certificate case Bhupati Charan cleared the dues and that he filed Title Suit No.303 of 1997 against the wrong records of rights and that the suit was decreed on 07.06.1972 and Bhupati Charan died leaving plaintiffs as heirs and they have been in possession of the property and that the plaintiffs' father died just after obtaining the decree in Title Suit No. 303 of 1997 and as such could not correct the mutation and the tashilder of the respondent No.1 (Government) being encouraged by the wrong record of right got the suit property enlisted as enemy property and taking advantage of wrong enlistment of the property as enemy property, the plaintiffs have been threatened to be dispossessed and as such the plaintiffs felt constrained to file the suit.

(3.) The suit was contested by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 denying the material averments made in the plaint and stating, inter alia, that the suit property has been correctly enlisted as vested property.