ABDUL HALIM Vs. TATAN MIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition for leave to appeal, at the instance of the defendant/petitioner, is directed against the judgment and order dated 9.2.2006 and 12.2.2006 of the High Court Division passed in Civil Revision Case No.3714 of 2000 making absolute the Rule obtained against the judgment and decree dated 17.7.2000 of the learned Additional District Judge, Court No.10, Dhaka passed in Title Appeal No.438 of 1993 affirming those of dated 10.11.1993 of the learned Assistant Judge, 4th Additional Court, Dhaka passed in Title Suit No.72 of 1993 decreeing the suit.

(2.) The respondents, as plaintiffs, instituted the above Title Suit No.72 of 1993 for a decree of permanent injunction by way of restraining the petitioner from interfering with their in the suit land on the averments that the suit land, comprising an area .58 decimals of land, belonged to recorded owner Karim Munshi and after his death Rahman Munshi and Meghu Munshi, sons, got /8/ annas share each; Meghu Munshi died leaving one son Abdul who sold some land to Sona Mia who in turn sold the same to Abdul Salam and Salma Begum and they then jointly sold their share to Akali Munshi; the first wife of Akali Munshi being childless, she and Akali Munshi adopted Jalaluddin as their son and then Akali Munshi gifted his share in favour of Jalaluddin; thereafter Basironnessa Bibi, second wife of Akali Munshi, gave birth to a female child and then at the request of Akali Munshi Jalaluddin gifted some land in faovur of Akali Munshi; subsequently Akali Munshi gifted some of his land in favour of Basironnessa Bibi; then Akali Munshi, Jalaluddin and Basironnessa Bibi jointly sold 29 decimals of land in favour of Nazimuddin by a kabala dated 3.4.1964 and Akali Munshi also transferred 29 decimals of land in favour of Nazimuddin by a kabala dated 22.4.1969 and accordingly the name of Nazimuddin was recorded in the S.A. Khatian; subsequently Nazimuddin died leaving one widow and four sons and four daughters as his heirs and all the heirs of Nazimuddin by kabala dated 18.4.1979 transferred the suit land in favour of the plaintiffs and then the plaintiffs, after mutating their names, constructed semi pucca building in the suit land and also paid rents, taxes and current bills etc. but, on 9.10.1992, the defendant threatened the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs in the suit land and hence the suit. The defendant contested the above suit and filed written statement contending that Karim Munshi, the recorded owner, died leaving behind not only Rahman Munshi and Megha Munshi, sons, but also two daughters Sirjon Bibi and Sukhownessa Bibi and one wife Bahatunnessa Bibi who jointly transferred their share in favour of Rahman Munshi by a kabala dated 17.11.1927; Megha Munshi also transferred his entire share of land in favour of Rahman Munshi in the year 1928 A.D. by an unregistered kabala at a consideration less than Tk.100/- and handed over possession of the same in favour of Rahman Munshi; thus Megha Munshi, at the time of his death, having no right, title and possession in the suit land, his son Abul did not inherit any share and so the subsequent purchasers including the plaintiff did not acquire any right, title and interest in the share of Megha Munshi; Rahman Munshi while being owner of the suit land died leaving behind Kalim Munshi, Salim Munshi and Alimuddin Munshi, sons, and accordingly their names were recorded in S.A. Khatian No.204 but therein the names of their far was wrongly printed as Karim Munshi instead of Rahman Munshi; Alimuddin Munshi died leaving wife Sonabanu and two brothers Salim, Kalim; then Sonabanu gifted her entire share in favour of defendant No.1 by a heba deed dated 2.9.1987; Salim died leaving four sons and two daughters and they along with Kalim transferred their share in favour of defendant No.1 by six registered deed; Hachon Banu, in terms of a contract to sell her share to the defendant No.1, handed over the possession of her share to the defendant No.1 and thus defendant No.1 had been owing and possessing the suit land. The trial Court, after hearing, decreed the suit. On appeal the learned Additional District Judge, Dhaka allowed the appeal. The plaintiff-respondents then moved the High Court Division and obtained Rules and after hearing, the High Court Division made the Rule absolute.

(3.) We have heard the learned advocate-on-record, perused the impugned judgment and order and other connected papers.