HARUNULLAH AKHAND Vs. ABDUL LATIF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 26.06.2005 passed by a Single Bench of the High Court Division in Civil Revision No. 3214 of 1997 making the Rule absolute.

(2.) Short facts are that the plaintiff instituted Title Suit No.76 of 1992 in the Court of Additional Assistant Judge, 1st Court, Gazipur for declaration of title, stating, inter alia, that an area of 2 acres of land out of total 3.80 acres of C.S. Plot No. 1696 of Mouza Selan was taken settlement by plaintiffs' predecessor-in-interest, namely, Ishaque and Ismail on 08.08.1935 by patta from the original owner, Bhawal Court of Wards. Ishaque and Ismail paid rent to the Bhawal Court of Wards till the rent receiving interest was acquired by the Government and after their death, the plaintiff Nos.1-7 as heirs of Ishaque inherited the property and plaintiff Nos.20-25 as the heirs of Ismail are in continuous possession of the suit land on payment of rent regularly. The suit land was wrongly recorded in the name of Ishaque alone in S.A. Khatian No. 124 leaving out the heirs of Mohammad Ismail and there was further mistake in respect of the number of S.A. Plot No. 244 in place of 1696. Taking advantage of the wrong entry in the S. A. Khatian, the defendant No.1 entered into the suit land by tampering the records and the defendant No.1 made false claim in respect of northern 2 acres of Plot No. 1696 showing its area as 2.08 acres of land. The plaintiff earlier filed an application under section 143(A) of the State Acquisition and Tenancy Act for correction of S.A. record in which the defendant No.1 appeared and filed written objection. The Miscellaneous Case was disposed of on the ground of maintainability and in the meantime the stage for R.S. Operation was over.

(3.) The defendant No.1 contested the suit by filing written statement denying the material allegations made in the plaint. The case of the defendant is that the suit is barred by limitation and his predecessor in interest took settlement of the entire suit land. Accordingly the S.A. Khatian was correctly prepared. So the suit is liable to be dismissed.