ABDUR RASHID BEPARI Vs. SOLEMAN ALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 14.05.2006 passed by the High Court Division in Civil Revision No.306 of 1996 making the Rule absolute and setting aside the judgment and decree dated 28.09.1995 passed in Other Appeal No.75 of 1994 upholding the judgment and decree dated 26.06.1994 passed in Other Suit No. 44 of 1994.

(2.) The facts, in short, are that the plaintiff-petitioner filed the aforesaid Other Suit No.44 of 1994 against the defendant-opposite party for declaration that the registered kabala deed No.3473 dated 01.08.1987 purportedly executed and registered by the plaintiff-petitioner in favour of the defendant-opposite party was forged, void, inoperative and was not binding upon the plaintiff-petitioner on the allegations, inter alia, that the disputed land to the extent 16 decimals covered by the aforesaid disputed kabala deed No. 3473 dated 01.08.1987 belonged to the plaintiff-petitioner and he was still in possession of the said land. But the defendant-opposite party created the disputed kabala by means of fraud in collusion with his own people to defraud the plaintiff-petitioner. The plaintiff-petitioner never sold the disputed land nor executed and registered the disputed kabala in favour of the defendant-opposite party on receipt of any consideration as alleged and he is still in possession of the suit land. The plaintiff-petitioner for the first time came to know about the disputed kabala on 08.11.1993 corresponding to 23rd Kartik, 1398 B.S. when he was cutting his Amon paddy on the suit land the father of the defendant-opposite party came to resist him in cutting away his paddy and disclosed about the disputed kabala.

(3.) The defendant-opposite party contested the said suit by filing written statement denying the material allegations in the plaint contending, inter alia, that the plaintiff-petitioner executed and registered the aforesaid kabala deed dated 01.08.1987 on receipt of consideration money from the defendant-opposite party tendering possession to him. Hence the suit was liable to be dismissed.