SHIRAJUL ISLAM Vs. SHOSHTI RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition for leave to appeal has been filed against the judgment dated July 22, 2003 of a Single Bench of the High Court Division in Civil Revision No. 1595 of 1996 discharging the Rule obtained against the judgment and decree dated March 3, 1996 of the Court of Subordinate Judge (now Court of Joint District Judge) and Artha Rin Adalat, Faridpur in Title Appeal No. 172 of 1991 allowing the same and thereby setting aside the judgment and decree dated May 21, 1991 of the Court of Senior Assistant Judge, Madhukhali, Faridpur in Title Suit No. 5 of 1989 dismissing the same.

(2.) The suit was filed seeking declaration of title and khas possession and for the further relief that the auction sale in certificate case No. 615 BK of 1981-82 is fraudulent and void. The appellate Court upon allowing the appeal decreed the suit and thereupon directed the defendant Nos. 1-3 to vacate the land in suit within 30 days failing which plaintiff would be entitled to take delivery of possession through Court.

(3.) The suit was filed stating, inter alia, that the land in suit belonged to Dharani Dhor and he had 2 sons, Khokan Chandra Malo and Dasharath Chandra Malo by his first wife, that Dharani Dhor's first wife and Khokan Chandra Malo died before Dharani Dhor and Dasharath, that Dharani Dhor has a daughter by name Shoshti Rani through his second wife, Kudi Shandari, that Dharani Dhor gifted 3.63 acres of land to Dasharath Chandra Malo and plaintiffs mother Kudi Shundari, that land measuring 1.82 acres is the 'Stree Dhan' of Kudi Shundari. Dasharath sold his property to different persons, that Kudi Shundari sold 36 decimals of land to Kalipada Shaha who sold the same to Manu Chowdhury. Kudi Shundari died leaving the plaintiff, that plaintiffs husband and minor son died leaving her, that plaintiff is staying in the land in suit and that on 5th Aswin, 1392 BS defendants threatened her to dispossess and thereupon he making query came to know that defendant No. 1 has auction purchased the land although no notice of the proceeding in which auction sale held was served on the plaintiff, that the auction was held beyond the knowledge of the plaintiff, that land in suit is not the land of her father and that the land in suit is the 'Stree Dhan' of her mother, that defendant No. 6 forcibly entered on the land on 6th Bhadra, 1397 BS and has erected a hut on 13 decimals of land and that defendant Nos. 1-3 had dispossessed the plaintiff, that plaintiff filed a case before the certificate officer for setting aside the auction sale but the same was dismissed.