CHAIRMAN, RAJUK Vs. ABDUL MATIN CRORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal at the instance of defendant-appellant, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 24-11-1998 passed by Mr. Md. Ali Haider, Subordinate Judge, First Court, Dhaka, in Title Suit No. 294 of 1996 decreeing the suit.

(2.) Short facts leading to this appeal are, that on 26-11-1996 the respondent as plaintiff filed a suit being Title Suit No. 294 of 1996 in the Court of the then Subordinate Judge, First Court, Dhaka on the following reliefs: ....[VARNACULAR TEXT OMITTED]....

(3.) The plaintiff's case, in short, is that on 18-1-1990 plaintiff purchased Plot No. 12, RAJUK Biponon Commercial Area of Mouja Karwan Bazar, Police Station Ramna, District Dhaka measuring an area of 6 katha 12 chhatak as described in the schedule of the plaint by auction, at a price of Taka 14,30,000 per katha, total amounting to Taka 96,52,000 as the highest bidder. Thereafter, defendant vide its Office Letter dated 23-1-1990 issued letter of allotment in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant induced the bidder to participate in auction showing incorrect nature of land in the auction notice published in the newspaper. After registration of lease agreement dated 2-12-1990 and taking possession, the plaintiff came to learn from the report on soil test dated December, 1990 that there is a ditch at a depth of minimum 40 feet filled up with garbage in the said plot. The plaintiff had to expend more than Taka 80,00,000 for foundation and piling. Since 1991, the plaintiff on many occasions approached to defendant to waive second and third instalments with interest for 62,10,217 but with no effect. Finding no other alternative, on 234-1994 the plaintiff served legal notice to defendant to waive second and third instalments with interest and to remove unauthorised occupants around the schedule plot; but defendant did not take any step to that effect. Further case of the plaintiff was that the defendant by suppressing the material defect and nature of plot committed fraud upon the plaintiff. The defendant after executing lease agreement in favour of plaintiff received Taka 48,26,250 as first premium, rest three instalments were scheduled to be paid on 23-2-1991 for Taka 23,80,950, on 23-21992 for Taka 21,23,550 and on 23-2-1993 for Taka 18,66,150 out of which second instalment of Taka 23,80,950 was paid by the plaintiff. As the plaintiff incurred a loss of Taka 80,00,000 expended for foundation and piling, so he repeatedly approached the defendant to waive the rest instalments but with no effect. Hence the suit.