MST. DORAE ANWARA KHATUN CHOWDHURY Vs. SHEKERERNESSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These petitions for leave to appeal are directed against the judgment and order dated 24.04.2006 passed by the High Court Division in Civil Revision Nos. 3427, 3388, 3391 and 3389 of 1997 making the Rule absolute arising out of the judgment and decree dated 27.11.1996 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, 2nd Court, Feni allowing the Title Appeal No. 30 of 1992 and reversing the judgment and decree dated 01.03.1992 passed by the learned Upazila Assistant Judge, Dagunbhuiyan in decreeing the Title Suit No. 59 of 1989.

(2.) The respondent No.1 as plaintiff instituted Title Suit No. 59 of 1989 praying for specific performance of contract stating, inter alia that the defendant opposite parties proposed to sell the suit land and the petitioner wanted to purchase the same for the price of Tk.10, 000/- for which the plaintiff purchased necessary stamp from the Feni Treasury through a vendor on 12.12.1977. The seller defendants received the consideration money from the plaintiff on 01.10.1978, executed the kabala and delivered possession of the land in favour of the plaintiff on the same day. The defendant No.1 executed the kabala by putting her signature. The two defendants are sisters and the name of defendant No.1 was written under her thumb impression by the husband of defendant No. 2. The document could not be registered on the date of execution as it was a holy day. They gave words that they would effect registration later, but they started delaying the matter and on 01.09.1991 refused to effect the registration. Then he was constrained to filed this suit.

(3.) The defendants contested the suit by filing a written statement stating that they owned 1854 decimals of land including the suit land out of which they settled 5 acres with Ahmed Ali and others in 1952 A.D. orally and the remaining land was being possessed by the defendant No.1 through Bargadar, they never proposed to sell any land to the plaintiff, never received any consideration money, never executed any document for the purpose and the husband of defendant No.2 had never written the name of defendant No.1, they never delivered possession of the lands nor did they ask the writer to draw the deed nor asked the witnesses to attest the same, the plaintiff has fraudulently created the document.