KULSUMA KHATUN Vs. RAHMAN SOBHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 5-7-2006 passed by a Single Bench of the High Court Division in Civil Revision No. 4334 of 1998 discharging the Rule.

(2.) The short fact leading to the filing of the leave petition is that the suit land is originally recorded as Government khas land during the time of CS operation. The suit land was sold in auction for arrear of rent in Certificate Case No. 25/20-21 on 11-9-1922 and auction-purchased by one Abala Sundari in the benami of Upendra Lal Chowdhury and Prafulla Bala Debt and got delivery of possession through Court. Upendra Lai Chowdhury by registered deed dated 22-9-1922 relinquished his claim in favour of Abala Sundari and Abala Sundari got delivery of possession on 31-5-1923. Prafulla Bala by registered kabala dated 22-9-1930 sold her share of land to Abala Sundari and delivered possession to her. RS Khatian finally stands recorded in the name of Abala Sundari. The suit land was hillock and full of jungle. Abala Sundari converted the same by expending huge amount of money. Abala Sundari while in possession made an agreement for sale with the predecessor of the plaintiffs with a consideration money of Taka 2500 and she took Taka 2000 as advance and delivered possession to plaintiffs' predecessor on 26th of Kartik, 1340 BS. After purchase the predecessor of the plaintiffs constructed kutcha and pucca houses upon the schedule land and he was in peaceful possession. After the death of their predecessor the plaintiffs are in possession upon the suit schedule land and they acquired title over the same under section 54 (A) of the Transfer of Property Act. The defendant Nos. 2 to 14 have got no right, title, interest and possession over the suit land but they have fraudulently managed to have their names recorded in the BS khatian and now they are claiming title over the suit land. Hence the plaintiffs filed the present suit for declaration of their title.

(3.) The defendant did not appear in the suit in spite of due notice and, as such, the learned trial Court took up the suit for ex parte hearing and by Order No.1 dated 23-3-1991 the trial Court decreed the suit ex parte. Against this ex parte decree, Rahman Sobhan and Farooque Sobhan filed Miscellaneous Case No. 32 of 1991 under Order IX, rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure.