Home Today's Paper Most Popular Video Gallery Photo Gallery
Subscription Blog Signin Register
Logo
Thursday, August 24, 2017 02:40:16 PM
Follow Us On: Facebook Twitter Twitter Twitter Twitter

Entitlement of co-sharer in ejmali property

By
20th-May-2017       Readers ( 291 )   0 Comments
Comments
Share your thought
Post a comment »
Read all (0) »

Appellate Division
 (Civil)
Md Abdul Wahhab Miah J
Md Imman Ali J
AHM Shams uddin
Choudhury J     
Judgment  
June 23rd, 2015
Helaluddin ............
......... Appellant
Nazimuddin and
others     ...............
...... Respondents"
Code of Civil Procedure (V of 1908)
Order XLI, rule 3
Where a co-sharer in ejmali property, when he has been in exclusive possession of a specific and separate share thereof demarcated by boundary, is entitle to retain his portion till legal partition, by an order of injunction.
..............We find that the trial Court dismissed the suit because the boundaries of the suit land were not proved by evidence. We note, however, that the trial Court observed that although the suit land was recorded in a separate khatian but the plots were not separated in the names of the plaintiffs and defendants. However, the observation of the trial Court is contradictory to Exhibit-2 series/which show two separate plots. Incidentally the learned Judge of the trial Court himself noted that the mutation porcha exhibited by the plaintiffs as Exhibit-2 and 2(Kha) show that the name of the plaintiffs have been mutated in respect of 46 decimals of land. This description, in our view, is sufficiently clear  to identify the suit land of the plaintiffs as being 46 decimals of land out of 92 decimals of the whole plot i,e. half of the plot, situated in the western side of the plot bounded in the north by Syed Ali, in the south by a road, in the east by Nazim Uddin and in the west by Syed Ali. To our mind, this description makes the land in possession of the plaintiffs sufficiently identifiable. . ..... (12, 13 & 14)
Moharram Ali vs Mohammad Madhu Mia, 41 DLR (AD) 92 ref.
Sheikh Mohammad Morshed, Advocate, instructed by Taufique Hossain, Advocate-on-Record-For the Appellant.
Awlad Ali, Senior Advocate, instructed by Syed Mahbubar Rahman, Advocate-on-Record-For Respondent Nos. 1-5.
Judgment
Md Imman Ali J : This Civil Appeal, by leave, is directed against the judgment and order dated 14-12-2005 passed by a Single Bench of the High Court Division in Civil Revision No. 2151 of 2004 making the Rule absolute. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellant along with others as plaintiffs instituted title suit No. 246 of 2001 in the court of Senior Assistant Judge, 2nd Court, Narayangonj, praying for permanent injunction in the suit land. They contended, inter alia, that the suit land belonged to Azimuddin Madbar who died leaving behind two sons, named Hafizuddin and Mofizuddin. Hafizuddin died leaving behind his wife Nurjahan Bibi, a son plaintiff No.1 and two daughters plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3. Nurjahan Bibi transferred her share of the land along with tinshed huts by Wasiwatnama dated 14-3-1981 in favour of the plaintiff No.1. During RS operation 23 of deciminals of land was recorded in the name of Nurjahan Bibi. In this way the plaintiffs have been in possession in the suit land by way of inheritance and on the strength of the Wasiwatnama. Their names have been correctly recorded in SA and RS Khatian. Thus the defendants have got no right, title and possession in the suit land. On 24-11-2001 the defendants threatened to dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit land. Hence, they filed the suit.
2. The defendant Nos. 1-4 contested the suit by filing written statement denying the material statements made in the plaint contending, inter alia, that the suit land belonged to Azimuddin who died leaving behind two sons Hafizuddin and Mofizuddin. Hafizuddin and Mofizuddin both transferred 45 decimals of land from plot No. 1814 by a kabala dated 12-4-1943 in favour of Satish Chandra Paul and handed over possession. They further sold 45 decimals of land by a kabala dated 17-4-1944 in favour of Hossain Miah and Alijan Miah, who got possession and their names were recorded duly in the Khatian. Hossain Miah and Alijan Miah transferred 221/2 decimals of land by a kabala dated 4-2-1957 in favour of Mir Syed Ali. Hossain Miah again transferred 11/1-3 decimals of land by a kabala dated 29-4-1963 in favour of Mir Syed Ali, Alijan transferred 11-1/4 decimals of land by two kabalas dated 17-3-1965 and 1-5-1965 in favour of Mir Syed Ali, In this way Mir Syed Ali  purchased 45 decimals of land and his name was correctly recorded in the RS Khatian. One Chan Miah being an heir of Hossain Miah transferred 5 decimals of land by a kababa dated 14-9-1970 in favour of Mofizuddin, Mir Ibrahim son of Mir Syed Ali sold 71/2 decimals of land by a kabala dated 3-5-2000 and Mir Wahidulla and other two heirs of Mir Syed Ali transferred 7 decimals of land by a kabala dated 29-11-1993 in favour of defendant No.1. Mir Shahjahan Ali, another son of Mir Syed Ali, transferred 7Jdecimals of land and Mir Salima Begum and  Shahida Begum two daughters of Mir Saved Ali transferred 71 h decimals of land in favour of defendant No.I. Mosammat Masuda, another daughter of Mir Syed Ali, transferred by a kabala dated 4-3-1990 an area of 0.0367 Ajutangsha in favour of the defendant. Mofizuddin, the father of defendant No.1 transferred 5 decimals of land by a Heba dated 29-11-1996 in favour of defendant No.1. In this way defendant No. 1 became owner and possessor of 68 decimals of land and mutated  his name, constructed a tinshed hut, one kitchen and one temporary latrine and has been in possession thereof through his tenant. Defendant No.1 sold 5 decimals of land to Abdul Karim who constructed a pucca building and has been in possession. The plaintiffs have got no title and possession in the suit land. With these averments they prayed for dismissal of the suit.
3. The plaintiffs examined 3 PWs and the defendants examined 4 DWs.
4. After hearing the parties and considering the evidence and materials on record, the learned Assistant Judge, Second Court, Narayangonj, by his judgment and decree dated 18-8-2003 dismissed the suit.
5. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the plaintiffs preferred Title Appeal No. 188 of 2003 and the said appeal was heard by the learned Additional District Judge, 1st Court, Narayimgonj, who by his judgement and decree dated 13-5-2004 allowed the appeal and decreed the suit setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial court.
6. Against the aforesaid judgement and decree, the defendants filed Civil Revision No. 2151 of 2004 before the High Court Division and obtained Rule, which upon hearing was made absolute. Hence, the plaintiffs as petitioners filed civil petition for leave to appeal No. 353 of 2006.
7. Leave was granted on the following submissions of the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner:
"(1) It is abundantly clear that the suit land has been properly described by the plaintiff in the plaint showing the boundary of it and out of 92 decimals of land 46 decimals has been in the possession of the plaintiffs and on the Northern side of the suit land it was the land of Mir Syed Ali, on the Southern side it was road and on the Eastern side it was the land of Nazimuddin and on the Western side it was the land of Mir Syed Ali, and this clearly shows that the suit land has been properly specified by the plaintiffs in the plaint, but the High Court Division without taking into consideration the specification of the suit land made the Rule absolute which is illegal, untenable and unsustainable in the eye of law.
"(II) The High Court Division failed to consider that PW 1 during cross examination had stated that:
Avwg Gm, G, cP©v `vwLj KwiqvwQ| Zvnv‡Z ev`x‡`i c~e©eZx©‡`i bvgwjwc Av‡Q| and also stated that: ev`xi Rb¥ Aewa bvwjkx f~wg‡Z evwo Ni Kwiqv emevm Kwi‡Z‡Q| Avgvi AbygwZ `v‡bi c~‡e©I ev`xiv GLv‡b _vwKZ|  This clearly shows that the plaintiffs have been in possession of the suit land and the High Court Division has travelled beyond its jurisdiction by not considering that the suit land for which the plaintiffs prayed for injunction has been in the possession of the plaintiffs and, as such, the judgment and order passed by the High Court Division is liable to be set aside; and
"(lll) DWl during cross examination stated that ev`x‡`i `yBwU †mwg cvKv eviv›`vmn Ni Av‡Q| GKwU †`vPvjv Ni Av‡Q, Zvnvi Rb¥ Aewa GBLv‡b †fvM `Lj Av‡Q| ev`x‡`i Ni Avgvi evwo Ni nB‡Z jv‡Mvqv|  The possession of the suit land by the plaintiffs is also corroborated by DW 1 and on this score the High Court Division ought to have taken into consideration that the suit land for which the plaintiffs prayed for injunction is specified and also the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit land and, as such, the judgment and order passed by the High Court Division is liable to be set aside since that impugned judgment and order is not sustainable in law and, as such, is liable to be set aside.
8. Mr Sheikh Mohammad Morshed, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant made submissions in line with the grounds upon which leave was granted. The learned Advocate further submitted that the trial Court noted that Exhibit-2 and 2(Kha) show 46 decimals of land having separate mutation in the name of the plaintiff but went on to hold that the boundary of the suit land was not proved by any witness and that although the suit land was recorded in a separate khatian as shown in the RS Porcha it did not record the separate plots of the plaintiff and defendant. The learned Advocate submitted that Exhibit-2 series clearly shows that separate plot have been mentioned in the khatian. In this regard he referred to the decision in the case of Moharram Ali vs Mohammad Madhu Mia reported in 41 DLR (AD) 92. The learned Advocate pointed' out that DW 1 admitted in his cross-examination that the plaintiffs were in possession of the suit land and living there since their birth by constructing homestead thereon. He also pointed out that DW 1 admitted that the name of the predecessor of the plaintiffs appears in the SA Porcha and a separate RS Khatian has been prepared in respect of the suit plot owned by the heirs of Hafiz Uddin, thus the appellate Court was correct in decreeing the suit for permanent injunction, and the High Court Division was wrong to interfere with the decision of the last court of facts.
9. Mr Awlad Ali, learned Senior Advocate on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1-5 made submission in support of the impugned judgement and order of the High Court Division. The learned Advocate further submitted that admittedly the plaintiffs are cosharers of the suit plot comprising land measuring 92 decimals with homestead and, therefore, cannot maintain a suit for permanent injunction unless they can prove their exclusive possession. The learned Advocate also submitted that the 46 decimals of land claimed by the plaintiffs having not been specifically demarcated, the suit for permanent injunction was not maintainable and the High Court Division was correct in setting aside the decree of the lower appellate Court.
10. We have considered the submissions of the learned Advocates appearing for the parties concerned and perused the impugned judgment and order of the High Court Division and other connected papers on record.
11. We note from the impugned judgement that the High Court Division reversed the judgement and decree of the appellate Court on the ground that the suit land was not identifiable, and as the suit for permanent injunction related to a portion of a bigger plot such a suit is not maintainable unless the plaintiffs are able to make out a case of exclusive possession. The High Court Division observed that the plaintiffs ought to have filed a suit for partition.
12. The learned Advocate for the appellant has placed before us the case of Moharram Ali Vs Mohammad Modhu Mia reported in 41 DLR (AD) 92, where it was held that where a co-sharer in ejmali property, when he has been exclusive possession of a specific and separate share thereof demarcated by boundary, is entitle to retain his portion till legal partition, by an order of injunction.
13. In the instant case, we find that the trial Court dismissed the suit because the boundaries of the suit land were not proved by evidence. We note, however, that the trial Court observed that although the suit land was recorded in a separate khatian but the plots were not separated in the names of the plaintiffs and defendants. However, the observation of the trial Court is contradictory to Exhibit-2 series/which show two separate plots. Incidentally the learned Judge of the trial Court himself noted that the mutation porcha exhibited by the plaintiffs as Exhibit-2 and 2(Kha) show that the name of the plaintiffs have been mutated in respect of 46 decimals of land. Moreover, by amendment dated 20-2-2003 the suit land has been described as follows:
3684 `v‡M 16 Avbv 92 kZvsk cwðgv‡s‡ki Kv‡Z 46 kZvsk| hvnvi †PŠnwÏ Dˇi ˆmq` Avjx| `wÿ‡Y iv¯Ív, c~‡e©-bvwRg DwÏb, cwð‡g-ˆmq` Avjx Zrcwð‡g †ij jvBb| t
14. This description, in our view, is sufficiently clear to identify the suit land of the plaintiffs as being 46 decimals of land out of 92 decimals of the whole plot i.e. half of the plot, situated in the western side of the plot bounded "in the north by Syed Ali, in the south by a  road, in the east by Nazim Uddin and in the west by Syed Ali. To our mind, this description makes the land in possession of the plaintiffs sufficiently identifiable.
15. In view of the above discussion, it appears that the finding of the trial Court with regard to the plaintiffs claim of exclusive possession is not correct in view of Exhibit-2 series and also the fact that DW 1 admitted the possession in the suit land by the plaintiffs, the High Court Division was wrong in upholding the decision of the trial Court.
16. Moreover, admittedly a separate khatian has been prepared in the name of the plaintiffs, which is sufficient to show exclusive possession of the plaintiffs.
17. However, our views expressed above shall not be binding in the trial Court if any suit is filed for partition. In such event the trial Court will be at liberty to give saham to the parties in accordance with title and possession established in such partition suit.
18. With the above observations, the appeal is allowed without, however, any order as to costs.

0 Comments. Share your thoughts also.
Write a comment
Tariff
Add Rate

News Archive

Inside The New Nation

Cricket »

Aussies go for defensive strategy against Tigers


UNB, Dhaka :Australian batting line will go for defensive strategy against the Tigers during their two-match Test series which will begin with the 1st match at Sher-e-Bangla National Cricket Stadium in Mirpur on Sunday (Aug 27).Visiting team's aggressive batting all-rounder Glenn Maxwell said, "I think the main thing is to ...

Entertainment »

Shailene Woodley might enter politics soon


Actress Shailene Woodley, who calls herself a feminist, says she doesn’t rule out the idea of running for political office. “There was a point last year when I was working for Bernie Sanders where I thought, ‘Huh, maybe I’ll run for Congress in a couple years. And you know what? ...

City »

Bangladesh Poribesh Andolon ( BAPA) and other organisations formed a human chain in front of South City Corporation office on Wednesday demanding measures for quick disposal of sacrificial animals' wastes during the upcoming Eid-ul-Azaha.


.

International »

US defence chief in Turkey for talks on Syria, Kurds


AFP, Ankara :Pentagon chief Jim Mattis arrived in Ankara on Wednesday for talks with Turkish leaders expected to focus on Washington's arming of a Syrian Kurdish militia, which Turkey views as a terror group, in the fight against Islamic State.Mattis flew in for the one-day visit after stopping in Iraq ...

Football »

Brothers taste first win in BPL Football


Brothers Union Club registered their first victory in the Saif Power Battery Bangladesh Premier League Football as they recorded a hard-fought solitary goal victory over Muktijodda Sangsad Krira Chakra held on Tuesday at Bangabandhu National Stadium.The first half of the match saw both the team got several scoring chances but ...

Editorial »

None to oversee and run the Insurance Sector


ACCORDING to the Insurance Development and Regulatory Authority (IDRA) sources, the organisation's top posts are still vacant, meaning - it can neither hold Board Meetings nor take decisions on policyholders and insurers' interest. Thus, the IDRA's validity and functionality come into the fore right away. IDRA has been formed under ...

International »

After Trump`s warning, China jumps to defense of Pakistan


PTI, New Delhi :China today jumped to the defence of its all-weather ally Pakistan in the wake of US President Donald Trump's stern warning to it over providing safe havens to terrorists, claiming that Islamabad is at the frontline of combating terrorism.Donald Trump, in his first prime-time televised address to ...

International »

India's top court bans Islamic instant divorce


Reuters, New Delhi :India's Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled a controversial Muslim instant divorce law unconstitutional, a landmark victory for Muslim women who had long argued that it violated their right to equality.The law allows Muslim men to divorce their wives simply by uttering the word "talaq" three times. Muslim ...

City »

`Japan to continue support for Bangladesh's uplift`


Japan assured that the country would continue its assistance for Bangladesh's development."We would continue to render assistance for the development of Bangladesh," Japanese Ambassador in Dhaka Masato Watanabe said when he paid a farewell call on Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina at her office here on Tuesday morning. After the meeting, ...

Entertainment »

Jacqueline blessed to be a part of A Gentleman and Judwaa 2


Jacqueline Fernandez is certainly on a high with much talked about projects, A Gentleman opposite Sidharth Malhotra and Judwaa 2 opposite Varun Dhawan, releasing back to back. With A Gentleman releasing this Friday and simultaneously stepping into the promotions of her movie, Judwaa 2, it’s an eventful period for Jacqueline ...

Editorial »

High risk in railway travel through flooding zones


A FATAL train accident was narrowly averted in Tangail on Sunday dawn as locals from a nearby mosque stepped in to stop a train only few yards from a bridge partially destroyed by floodwater in the Kalihati Upazila of the district. Driver of the Dhaka-bound Nilsagar Express carrying around 2000 ...

Cricket »

Australia's cricket players (from left) Glenn Maxwell, David Warner and Usman Khawaja playing with a ball during a practice session in Dhaka on Monday. Australia is scheduled to play two Test matches against Bangladesh beginning August 27 in Dhaka.


Entertainment »

Chirodiner Sabina on BTV in Eid


Sabina Yasmin is a living legend in the country’s music arena. For many years her songs inspired us. She has not only rendered patriotic songs but also gave her voice for play-back songs. On the occasion of coming Eid, Bangladesh Television has taken initiative to arrange a solo musical show ...

Entertainment »

Legendary film actor Razzak


Entertainment Desk :Abdur Razzak (1942-2017) was a legendary Bangladeshi actor and film director. He is referred to as Nayak Raj Razzak, a title given by Ahmed Zaman Chowdhury, editor of Chitrali. He got the Independence Day Award in 2015. Razzak was born in Naktala in South Kolkata His parents Akbar ...

City »

BFUJ President Manjurul Ahsan Bulbul, among others, at a programme for collecting relief materials for flood-hit people organised by Rangpur Bibhag Sangbadik Samity at the Jatiya Press Club on Monday.


 
Items that you save may be read at any time on your computer, iPad, iPhone or Android devices.
 
Are you new to our website? Do you have already an account at our website?
Create An Account Log in here
Email this news to a friend or like someone
Email:
Write a comment to this news