East Bengal Form No. (J) V.
Heading of Judgement
Original Suit/Case
District : Rangpur
To the Court of Munsife Kurigram
Present : M.D. Salam, Judge, Kurigram Munsife Court.
The Monday, The 22 August, Date of 1966
Other Class Suit No. 1124 of 1966
- Md. Moktar Ali........................................................................Plaintiff/Petitioner’s.
Versus
- Zachim Kha Gonj...............................................................Defendant’s/Opposite Party.
This Suit/Case coming on final hearing on 05.01.68/20.03.68, 30.05.68/28.07.68 and
22.08.68
In presence of
- Mr. Fakhar Uddin..............................................................Advocate of Plaintiff’s.
- Mr. A.Z.M. Ashad
- Mr. Zamini Babu................................................................Advocate for Defendant’s.
And having stood for consideration
to this day. The Court delivered the following
Judgement.
Short description about prosecution
of the Plaintiff Party:
It is a suit
for right declaration. Described
disputed and bin-disputed land amount 13.40 acre is under the Khatian No.
86/83/11/586/142/4/588/587/144/124 No. already is the land. The C.S. Tenant
Pyari Muchi, Pishu Bhuimali, Haricharan Pare, Feleswari Debya, Jatra Prodhani,
Ram Sundar Prodhani, Bhunda Bhuimali, Umacharan Prodhani, Giri Chandra Nishi,
Kanta Prodhani, Rajkanta Prodhani disputed and bin disputed land rent/tax was
made an arrear and as such the above
mentioned owner Maharaja Shrish Chandra Nandi Bahadur Kurigram Munsife Court
for the purpose of arrear rent/tax
Certificate Case was brought of
which No. 335 2/1137. In the said case
Maharaja Shrish Chandra Nandi Bahadur
after received as the declaration for auction and then the father of this
Plaintiff Naser Ali was came as the candidate for Auction Purchase and then Maharaja was accepted his prayer and
631 ½ taka Najrana 89 ½ taka yearly rent/tax determination dispute and bin
dispute 13.43 acre land was transferred. The said Naser Ali dispute and bin
dispute 13.43 acre land was taken in own possession and on the passed dated
1946 AD Andharir Jar Khamar Mouza
3328/3332/3331 plot 1.15 acre land 3220/46 No. Sale Deed and vide it was
puchased and total 13.53 acre + 1.25 acre in total 14.28 acre land of owner was stand and on the
passed dated 07/02/51 AD, vide 661/662 No. Sale Deed and vide it 6.75 acre land
and through C & B 5.83 acre land
total 7.58 acre land was transfer and rest 6.73 acre land to the favor of the
plaintiff on the dated 31/12/57 AD and
through 5368 No. Heba Bel Awaz Deed and was transfer of the same and possession
right was received with understand. During the period of S.A. record
disputed land under the name of this plaintiff party, there should become
record in the name of the plaintiff party. Disputed land settlement workers S.A.
record in the name of the plaintiff after not to make record inclusion and
through a collaboration in the name of
the Defendant Party is closed. The said record was incorrect, conspiracy base
and opposite of the actual situation. The Plaintiff Party after making
correction of the said record and receiving of the same have the rightful
matter. About the matter of wrongfully recorded, the Plaintiff Party was not
informed in before. On the dated 15th of the past 1370
from the Tahsilder or Subordinate Revenue Officer was informed. This is
the suit for the Plaintiff.
On the other the Defendant No.
1-5 No. about short description of the reply: The Defendant Party after submission of the reply and mentioned
that the suit of the Plaintiff had been a true one. Nader Ali disputed and
bin-disputed land was bought through auction and there was transferred 6.75
acre of land to this Defendant Party and there was understood about the
possession right. In this manner the Defendant Party 6.75 acre land is enjoying
after receiving of the same. Rest of the
land is enjoying by the Plaintiff Party. S.A. record is correctly performed
in the name of the Defendant Party. This is the description of the Defendant
Party.
Besides 6-23 No. Defendant party
short description of the reply is that these Defendants was submitted of the
reply and was mentioned into the reply that
the Suit of the Plaintiff is false, issue less
conspiracy base, forgery, already
opposite of the actual situation. The suit of the Plaintiff Party already
suffer of limitation faults. The
Plaintiff Party can not have the lawful
right to get any kind of remedy. Nothing cause was arisen for to
constitute this kind of suit of the Plaintiff Party. S.A. Record is made
correctly. Disputed land was not made auction. Disputed land was under enjoying
of the Defendant Party as before and at present also remaining of the same. The
suit should be made dismiss of the same.
Finding Facts:
- If have the causes for dispute of the Defendant in the suit ?
- If the suit is bearing fault with limitation ?
- If the suit should be maintaining in this manner
- If have the perfect right in the disputed land ?
- If have any right to get relief of the Plaintiff Party according to prayer ?
Discussion and
Decision
Considering Subject No. 1 : Pleadings of the Plaintiff and
the Defendant, in both of the parties Witnesses, Possession and Shown documents
over al the file in overall verification end and the repugnant opinion of the court is made that in the said
suit, cause for dispute is remaining. According to it, this subject is going to
the favor of the Plaintiff.
Considering Subject No. 2 : The Defendant Party No. 6-23 was
mentioned in reply that the Suit is suffering from limitation. But during the
period of witness prove, taking this matter, the Plaintiff or his Witnesses and
in documentary manner even during the period of argument, the learned Lawyer of
the Defendant Party and kind of cause or
reply was not submitted to this court or
did not deliver any speech about the matter of limitation. As such in this
court, this kind of opinion is made that the matter is disposed to the favor of
the Plaintiff Party without any kind of contest.
Considering Subject No. 3 :
Witness prove and submitted documents of the Plaintiff and the Defendant Party
and according to the acknowledgement of the Defendant No. 1-5 disputed and bin
disputed 13.03 acre land was purchase by
the father of the Plaintiff Party Name with Auction and in the year 1946 vide
3120 No. Sale
Deed 1.25 acre total 14.28 acre was became the owner. Among this
6.75 acre land was transferred to
the Defendant No. 1-5 and there was gone
.83 acre land in the road and C&B. Rest 6.70 acre land through the means of
cultivation was got the possession. According to the acknowledgement of 1-5 No.
Defendant, this court was taken this kind of decision that the matter is settle
in favor of the Plaintiff Party.
No comments:
Post a Comment