RATAN CHANDRA DEY Vs. JINNATOR NAHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition for leave to appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 21.5.2003 of the High Court Division passed in Civil Revision No.3728 of 1994 discharging the Rule obtained against the judgment and decree dated 1.11.94 of the Subordinate Judge (now Joint District Judge), 2nd Court, Noakhali passed in Title Appeal No.14 of 1991 reversing those of dated 29.11.1990 of the Assistant Judge, 3rd Additional Court, Sadar, Noakhali passed in Title Suit No.515 of 1983 decreeing the suit.

(2.) The plaintiff-petitioners, along with others, filed the above Title Suit No.515 of 1983 for declaration that the two ewaznama deeds as described in the Kha schedule to the plaint are forged, fraudulent, void and not binding upon them on the averments that Golak Sarder and Ramgati Sarder were the owners in possession of the suit property to the extent of 12 annas and 4 annas respectively covering an area of 5061/4 acres and 168% acres of land in schedule K of the plaint; Golak died leaving wife named Gunamala and Ramgati died leaving only son Gobinda and D.S record of rights was rightly prepared in the names of Gunamala and Gobinda; after the death of Gunamala, Mahanti Bala and Basanti Kumari became her heirs as Ujjalmani and Kara Kumari, two other daughters of Golak, died issueless; the successors of Mahanti Bala and- Basanti Kumari are the plaintiffs who sold some of their lands to the defendants and vice versa; the petitioners after demarcation are now the owners in possession of 394 3/16 acres of land in 'Ka' schedule property and in the remaining portion the proforma defendant Nos.2-22 are the owners in possession; Enamul Hoque, the husband of defendant respondent No.1, concocted two ewaznama deeds collusively and fraudulently showing Monoranjan Dey and Chitta Ranjan Dey, who are fictitious and nonexistent persons, as the heirs of Gunamala; Gunamala had no such heirs named Monoranjan and Chittaranjan and they were also never in possession of the suit land; the two ewaznama deed are forged, fraudulent and collusive deeds and were made to grab the properties of the petitioners.

(3.) The defendant respondent No.1 contested the suit by filing written statement denying the material allegations made in the plaint contending, inter alia, that Golak Sardar being the owner of 12 annas share of the suit property died leaving wife Gunamala and 4 daughters namely Basanta Bala Dey. Harkumari Dey, Mohanta Bala Dey and Hemanta Bala Dey; Gunamala died leaving behind the above four daughters to inherit her property; Basanta Bala Dey had four sons namely Parbatti Charan Dey, Har Gobinda, Haralal and Motilal; Har Kumari died leaving two sons namely Monoranjan and Chitta Ranjan; Mahanta Bala had 4 sons; thus in all Gunamala had ten grand sons by three daughters to inherit her 5.06 acres of land each inheriting 50 5/8 decimals of land; Har Kumari was married to Hara Mohan t Dey and Chittan Ranjan and Monoranjan are their sons who used to work in Maitri Allumuniun Works at Maijdee; both of them executed and registered ewaznama deeds on 18.12.1981 and 22.12.1981 and delivered possession in exchange of 1.50 acres of land of defendant respondent No.1 at Char Manasha and she had been owning and possessing the suit land and those deeds are real and genuine. The learned Assistant Judge, after hearing, decreed the suit holding that Monoranjan and Chittaranjan are not the grand sons of Gunamala through her three daughters and the existence of Monoranjan and Chittaranjan has also not been established and accordingly the impugned ewazdeeds are forged, fraudulent and collusive. The defendant respondent No.1 then preferred Title Appeal No. 14 of 1991 and after hearing the learned Subordinate Judge (Now Joint District Judge) allowed the appeal. The plaintiff/petitioners then moved the High Court Division and obtained Rule and, after hearing, the High Court Division discharged the Rule.