MD. BASARAT ALI Vs. MD. ABDUL MANNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by leave at the instance of defendant, is directed against the judgment and order dated 20.01.1997 passed by the High Court Division summarily rejecting revisional application filed against the judgment and decree dated 27.10.1996 in Title Appeal No.37 of 1990 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 1st Court, Sylhet setting aside the judgment and decree dated 17.01.1990 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, 1st Court, Sylhet in Title Suit No.31 of 1986 dismissing the suit.

(2.) Respondent Nos.1 to 14 instituted Title Suit No.31 of 1986 in the Court of the learned Subordinate Judge, Sylhet for declaration of their title to the land described in 2nd schedule which is part of 1st schedule land, by inheritance and by amicable partition with defendant Nos. 41 to 135.

(3.) Case of the plaintiff respondents, inter alia, is that the land of the 1st schedule appertaining to 2514/531. Thakur Das Taluk was recorded in chak No. 33 of Thak No. 3906 of Mouza Sandishail. The said schedule land was owned by Md. Kalim and possessed by Reza Mohammad and Md. Nazeem. By amicable partition Reza Mohammad became absolute owner in possession of land of Chak No.33 and after him, his successor-in-interest i.e. the plaintiffs and proforma defendant Nos.41 to 135 got the same. During the last settlement operation the said land was correctly recorded party in the names of the plaintiffs, partly in the names of defendants and partly in the names of their predecessor-in-interest. On amicable partition 12 annas share of the 1st schedule land, described in the 2nd schedule, was given in the saham of the plaintiff and in the rest of the 1st schedule land pro forma defendant No.41 got saham. Other defendants got land of their share in other chaks. But in the first week of April, 1986 the plaintiffs were astonished to learn that the 2nd schedule land had been recorded in the names of some of the principal defendants and some of their predecessors along with pro forma defendant No.41. The plaintiffs obtained certified copy of the settlement record and came to know about the said wrong record for the first time on 11.05.1985. In fact, none of the principal defendants or their predecessor had or has any title to or possession in the 2nd schedule land. The wrong record as to 12 annas share of 2nd schedule in the names of defendants, as aforesaid, has cast cloud upon the title of the plaintiffs who have been constrained to institute the suit for declaration of their title thereto for removing such cloud.