MD. IFTEKHER UDDIN BHUIYAN Vs. RANJIT KUMAR SAHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 03.08.2006 passed by the High Court Division in Civil Revision No. 5101 of 2000 discharging the Rule.

(2.) The plaintiff instituted Title Suit No.86 of 1989 in the Court of Senior Assistant Judge, Narsingdi for declaration that the registered deed No. 4999 dated 08.07.1989 in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Narsingdhi is not an exchange deed but the same is out and out a sale deed in respect of Kha schedule property of the plaint stating, inter alia, that the suit land originally belonged to one Sitanath Saha who died leaving three sons, Pran Gopal Saha @ Khhshinath Saha, Atul Krishna Saha and Binoy Bushan Saha. The three sons of Shitanath by a registered deed of partition dated 13.04.1963 got their ancestral land partitioned. Pran Gopal got 23 acres of land in his saham.

(3.) Subsequently, Pran Gopal died leaving behind five sons, including the plaintiff Ranjit Kumar Saha. They remained in the 1/3 rd share of their predecessor Pran Gopal. The land was recorded in R.S. Khatian in the name of the plaintiff and his brothers and defendant No.2 who is the uncle of the plaintiff. The Suit Plot No.288 was allotted to defendant No.2, who sold it to Siddiqur Rahman and plaintiff got this land by way of pre-emption in Miscellaneous Case No.88, 89 of 1986. The plaintiff being the eldest sons of Pran Gopal Saha was managing his own share of land and also the shares of his brothers after the death of his father from 10.01.1976. Defendant No.2 encroached upon .03 acres of land and erected structures therein, the plaintiff and his nephew brought Title Suit No.126 of 1986 on 25.11.1986 against the defendant No.2 for partition in the Court of Subordinate Judge(now Joint District Judge), Narsingdi. The defendant No.2 collusively executed a registered deed of exchange in favour of defendant No.1 on 08.09.1989 for the suit property. The deed of exchange deprived the right of preemption of the plaintiff. The plaintiff then instituted the instant suit for a declaration that the deed of exchange in question was an out and out deed of sale. Theplaintiff got amended the plaint by a judgment dated 22nd August, 1995 passed in Civil Revision No. 1677 of 1990 and added a prayer for decree for pre-emption in the suit property.