-:2:-
On the last dated 15/05/98 again by the person of
arbitration, in the Demra Police Station, in the present of both the parties,
the petitioner was submiited an agreement on written basis and was made understand the possession to the
opposite parties in well tricks and in
the later period, in the arbitration land and after bright the false ownership
and against of the opposite parties was
submitted the case for a permanent injunction. The party of petitioner, to
prove the case, P.W.-1 including four other was given the witness of the four
witnesses and in support of the possession, there was placed the deeds. On the
other, the opposite parties D.w-1 including
five other witnesses was given their witness and after performed in support of
it and was placed the deeds, which is identified by the Annexure. The leanrt
lower court was took the evidence and statement from both the parties and was
heard the arguments by both the parties and on the last dated 17/03/03 was
issued the judgement and decree , the petitioner’s permanent injuncttion case
was made dismissal without any obstruction. The said judgement and decree,
against of it, was submitted this case.
2.
It is consented by the petitioner and the opposite
parties that the complaint land of its principal owner was Amena Khatun and
others. The persons of Opposite party, from the principal owner Amena Khatun
and other, in the year of 1981, by the two Sale Deed and in the year 1985, by the four Sale Deed
in total 6 Sale Deed was bought the four and half katha (local measurement)
land which was identified by the Annexure ‘Ja’ and the Annexure ‘Da’ in a
series. On the other, the petitioner, on the dated 22/10/97 dated, by the Awaz
Exchange Deed, which is identified by the annexure ‘3’, one of the Ataul Haque Khan
and others, from them, the complaint two and half katha land was got by the way
of Awaz Exchange method. The petitioner/the opposite parties, about the
confliction of them is that the Petitioner in which land, by the reference of
Awaz exchange, Ataul Haque Khan and others, from them has been received. Which by the annexure-3, in the bounded area
of the said Deed, the identification of the land, to the North – the sold land
of Amena Khatun, at present has been written as road. But the statement by the
oppsite
-:3:-
parties
that, in the North of Amena Khatun, the sold land, the buyer is these persons
of opposite party. Which on behalf of
opposite party, the annexure-‘Jha’ series and ‘Da’ series, to the view of
dis-honest, the sold land of Amena Khatun, by the process of false, at present
the road demanded schedule of bounded
and as it, was made understand as 40 feet broad road, the possession of land to
the opposite party, bring it in own bounded land and the way of dis-principle
and captured it by a dis-honest manner, was submitted of this case. The
Petitoner, for the proveness of the statement to the opposite party, the
annexure – 1 series and annexure-3 and on behalf of the opposite
party annexure ‘Jha’ series and the ‘Da’ series, is need to clarification.
3.
The Annexure of the petitioner ‘1’ series from it 685
and 686 no Sale Deed which is the prior of the petitioner Ataul Haque Khan is a
bought deed. The said deed no. 685, in
the bounded to the North and to the East
the deed granto ownself that means Amena Khatun in own which is written. The
Annexure-3 of petitioner of its bounded
and to the north of the Amena Khatun, the sold land is written as road at
present. Both the bounded from it, it is seemed that the annexure-1, while
perform the series the complaint land to the north Amena Khatun. But the land
was which Amena Khatun in the laterperiod was sold. But the petitioner with
much cleverly of the Amena Khatun of her
sold land at present called the road and was made a dis-trial of it. The sold
land of Amena Khatun at present, what is has been come as a road. In support of
it, there is no deed evidence was not placed to the court. On the other, the
opposite parties made the demand that
the said northern part of land to Amena Khatun, the opposite parties in the
year of 1985 by four Sale Deed was bought Of which deed No. 11022, 11043, 11036, 11028. Which by the
annexure ‘Jha’ series a part of it and by the annexure ‘Da’ series a part of
it, to the North of the bounded area of the said deeds has written as canal.
The demand is from the opposite parties that the said canal is at present the
40 feet road. The canal is that at
present 40 feet as made which P.W.-1 has been
-:4:-
consented
in his statement. P.W.-1 on the last dated 17/1/2002 taken statement was
consented, in my deed to the north of the bounded area, has written the sold
land of Amena Khatun. This sold Amena Khatun to whom was done is not known by
me. The more over consented in his statement that the arbitration of land to
the north of it, by the side of the road place, there was a canal in before
which is not known to me.. The land of canal has been become the road about 40
feet which is not known by me. P.W.1, on the dated 18.11.2002 the accepted
statement was consented that in the rest
of land to Amena Khatun, who was captured, which is not known by me. The four
deeds of the dated 3/2/85 which I was
not seen . Against of these deed, there was not made any case. After the
submission of this case, these deeds about it I was known. After sold in the
plot of complaint, the owner of the rest land, Amena Khatun is not known by me.
The persons of opposite party also demand that the rest land of Amena Khatun
was bought. The said direction of land is on the place of the Govt. It is the Govt. Place P.W.-1 as such of word,
it is clear that the road to the north is on the place of Govt. that means is
situated on the Govt. canal. It is never
on the sold land of Amena Khatun.
Besides, Amena Khatun , from the northern part of it is not situated on
it. Besides Amena Khatun, to the northern part of it near by the canal the
place as it has sold, this is also P.W.-1
is proved from his statement, for this the demand of application by the
petitioner to the north of the complaint land 40 feet road which is completely false as it has been
proved. It is actually, to the northern part of the complaint land, the sold
land of Amena Khatun, the sold land the persons of opposite party, after bought from the year of 1985 to the
nearby place of road in the north was made the shop house and is enjoying it.
That means in the schedule of the
petitioner the demanded the bounded land, the ownership is completely failure to prove it by the petitioner In this case, 36 D.L.R. page 242, the
decision is applicable for consideration. Is specially mentioned that as the
base of demand to the petitioner that by the Sale Deed of the petitioner was
bought the complaint land. As this permanent injunction case, to the petitioner
should be proved the
-:5:-
ownership and full possession holder. In this
matter 43 D.L.R. (AD) page 215 the decision which exists is applicable for
consideration.
4.
This petitioner in the complaint land to his full possession
has been made able which is to be proved
by the learnt court. The leant lower court in its issued judge and decree by
the clearly the evidence and statement of the petitioner/opposite party and
after the verification has been come to the right decision that petitioner/the
applicant to the complaint land was not able to prove of his full possession.
Because the witness about the possession the submitted documents and the
presented fundamental evidence as it P.W.-2, 3, 4 in the complaint land the
full possession of the petitioner, about it has been failure to give the
evidence. P.W.-2 Abdul Awal in his statement , he was said that the persons of
opposite, in the complaint plot are the owner of many land. How much do they
occupy I can not say it. They are 8/10 numbers of co-sharers in that plot,
there known as the office of Ananda Transport. In the complaint of plot, Mr. Shafiuddin and the petitioner has
come at a time, it is seemed by me.
P.W.-2 as like of such statement,
it is understand in the land of
complaint land, the persons of opposite are in possession. The petitioner has not a full possession of
it. The other witness P.W. 3 was consented in his statement that he is known to
Mr. Shafiuddin for about 15/16 years. In the complaint land, there is no land
of Mr. Shafiuddin. P.W.3 in the next of
question the plot of the complaint land 625 and in the plot of 625 is being the
owner after bought by him. P.W. 3 was more over consented that in the complaint
of land, from the five rooms of the petitioner one of the room , the persons of
opposite was made dis-occupy to the petitioner. This dis-occupied land to the north is market shop. P.W. 3 as the
same statement by him, the applied bounded area of the petitioner land with it non-adjustable and it is also a against
direction. Because in the prayer schedule of
the petitioner the complaint land, to the north is the road. Besides, he
more over consented that Mr. Shafiuddin has been occipied any plot I can not
say it. On the other, P.W.
-:6:-
3 Nur Mohammad again Misc. 59/2000 which is from
this case is originated and in the said
case P.W. 3 as it was given the evidence and he said in the statement that Humayun Kabir has been bought the land in
before 6/7 years. He was got the
possession near about 10 years before. For this, the evidence of such like of
witness is not matter to belief and not to be dependable. On the part of the petitioner and the
evidence for possession and if these to be verified, it will be prove that in the complaint of land, there has not the
full possession of the petitioner and as such a permanent injunction is legally
a inactive.
5.
It is consented by the petitioner/persons of opposite
that the petitioner/applicant is not at present in the possession holder of the
complaint land. In this connection the petitioner/applicant, the statement of
this part is that petitioner/applicant
while running of this case, from one part of the agricultural land has
been dis-occupied by the persons of opposite. In this connection, the
petitioner party was wanted the return of the occupied land and was lodge the
case to the learnt court by Misc. Case No. 59/00 and was submitted a pen-made
map with it and in that map, the complaint full sixteen ana of land was
identified as the land of dis-occupied.
Of which he mentioned as 40 feet road to the north of it. In later
period, he was made the amendment and he said that he has been made
dis-occupied from the land of one katha. But the schedule and the bounded area
has been kept as unchanged. If he was made dis-occupied from the land of one
katha, in which part in the rest of the land is being the possession holder and
in which part has been made dis-occupied, there was not mentioned in the
schedule of the Misc. Case. So the fact, the site of the dis-occupied land is
un-determination. It is actually, the
petitioner/applicant party, in alternately,
as the land of dis-occupied, the said principal owner Amena Khatun of her
sold land in the northern part, which
the persons of opposite party in the year of 1983 was bought and in it, the
persons of opposite party are in owner possession holder and enjoyer.. Who is
directed to that land in which the petitioner was not in owner possession
-:7:-
holder
and enjoyer. In this matter, 42 D.L.R. page No. 434 of its decision is the
considerable subject. As the petitioner party, in the complaint land, there has
been made failure to prove of the possession and full occupied. As the learnt
the lower court in its issued judge and decree, in the above mentioned matters
was made properly discussion and was made as dismissal of the case to the
petitioner as legally. The learnt Lower Court was made its judgment and decree
in right way and as there was not any wrong as per legally or information basis
and the brought of this appeal case against of the said judgment and decree is
likely to be seemed as non-approved matter.
Under the above mentioned causes and tothe interest
of principle judgment, it is hereby requested to be
made of non-approval of this appeal case including
with the cost of it.
No comments:
Post a Comment