BULMAYEE BARMANI Vs. SREE MADHURAM BARMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Delay of 7 days is condoned.

(2.) This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the Judgment and order dated 21.08.2002 passed by a Single Bench of the High Court Division in Civil Revision Case No. 1815 of 1997 discharging the Rule obtained against the judgment and decree dated 10.10.1996 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge (now Joint District Judge) Second Court, Kurigram in Other Class Appeal No. 321 of 1995 allowing the appeal upon setting aside those of dated 19.04.95 passed by the learned Assistant Judge, Razar Hat, Kurigram in Other Class Suit No. 37 of 1994 decreeing the suit in preliminary form.

(3.) The petitioners filed the above suit praying for partition after declaration of their title in the suit land contending, inter alia, that the suit land appertaining to C.S Khatian No. 117 measuring 2.01 acres originally belonged to Sharbananda Das and Matinath Das in equal shares and their names were recorded in the C.S. Khatian and out of the above 2.01 acres of land one decimal of land was acquired for the road; Sharbananda, who got 1.00 acre of land in his share, he died leaving behind one daughter the defendant No.1 and one son the plaintiff No.2, the plaintiff No.1 was possessing the suit land as her life estate; that plaintiffs have homested in the westernside of Plot No. 227 and they, without partition, were facing inconvenience to possess the suit land and hence the suit for patition. The defendant No.1 contested the suit by filing written statement contending, inter alia, that the suit land appertaining to C.S, Khatian No. 116 is under Khatian No. 117; Sarbananda Das and Matinath Das were the korfa tenants of the suit land and they having defaulted in paying the Rent Suit No. 3485 of 1940 was filed which being decreed Rent Execution Case No. 807 of 1941 was filed in which Purnamayee, the mother of defendant No. 1 auction purchased the same on 10.9.1941 and got possession; Purnamayee being in possession of the suit land since her auction purchase S.A. Khatian was prepared in her name and she duly paid rents and after her death her son, the defendant No.1 is in possession of the same and the plaintiffs were no longer in possession of the suit land after the auction sale.