MD. SERAJUL ISLAM Vs. SHAIKH HAYET ALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition for leave to appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 5.5.2003 passed by a Single Bench of the High Court Division in Civil Revision No. 2469 of 2000 making the rule absolute and thus dismissing the Title Suit No. 27 of 1998 filed by the plaintiff petitioner which was decreed by the trial court as well as by the appellate court below.

(2.) The short facts leading to the filing of the leave petition is that the plaintiff petitioner instituted the said Title Suit No. 27 of 1990 in the Court of the learned Assistant Judge, Dohar, Dhaka for a declaration that the decision of the authorities in renewing his lease in respect of only half of the suit land was void, inoperative and not binding on him and he was entitled to the renewal of the lease in respect of the entire suit land alleging, inter alia, that the suit land originally belonged to Tokani Chowdhury and others. Since the said owners left the country for India the suit land was listed as Enemy Property and the plaintiff took year-to-year lease of the suit land and had been possessing the same. While the plaintiff petitioner was continuing in possession of the suit land on renewal of his lease the defendant No.6 managed to take lease in respect of half of the suit and from the defendant No. 1, Upazilla Nirbahi Officer. The plaintiff petitioner having been affected by the said decision of the Upazilla Nirbahi Officer took an appeal before the defendant No. 7, Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue), Dhaka and the Additional Deputy Commissioner allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Upazilla Nirbahi Officer.

(3.) The defendant No. 6 contested the suit by filing written statement denying all the material allegations and contending, inter alia, that suit was not maintainable and the court fee was insufficient. He further contended that his father had been possessing the suit land as bargadar of the original owners and after the original owners left the country for India the suit land became Enemy property. But defendant No. 6 and his father nonetheless continued in possession of the suit land. Since the defendant No. 6 and his father were illiterate the plaintiff managed to take lease of the suit land from the concerned authority by playing a trick on then" by giving false assurance that he, being the husband of his sister, would apply for a lease of the suit land on their behalf from the authority and obtained their thumb impression on a blank piece of paper but he never tried for them but look lease of the suit land from the authority concerned for himself only. After the death of the father, he the defendant No. 6, came to know about this fraudulent act and himself applied for a lease of the suit land in his name stating the fact and the concerned authority on due enquiry into the matter granted lease to the extent of half of the suit land in his favour and this decision of the authority having been challenged by the plaintiff was maintained up to the leave of the Land Appeal Board. In this background of the matter the suit for declaration by the plaintiff has been dismissed by the impugned judgment and decree passed by the High Court Division.