| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1963 SLG 3239 = 1963 SLD 3239 = 1963 PLD 57 |
Dacca High Court
Appeal from Appellate Decree No. 1018 of 1958, decided on 2nd May 1961.
Presented By: Sattar, J
Nurul Amin with A. R. Khan for Appellant. D. C. Bhattacharjee for
Respondents.
Appeal from Appellate Decree No. 1018 of 1958, decided on 2nd May 1961.
Presented By: Sattar, J
Nurul Amin with A. R. Khan for Appellant. D. C. Bhattacharjee for
Respondents.
MD. ABDUR RAHMAN BHUIYAN----Appellant
VERSUS
PRAFULLA CHANDRA MAJUMDAR AND OTHERS ---Respondents
Law:
Section:
Hindu Law-Dayabhaga School-Member of joint Hindu family purchasing property in his son's name (who has no fund of his own)-Property held that of the joint family. Co-sharer-Exclusive possession of joint property-Suing to recover possession from trespasser without joining other co-sharers Suit maintainable. Currimbboy & Co. Ltd. v. L. A. Creet and others 50 C L J 208 rel. JUDGMENT This appeal by the defendant arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff respondent for recovery of possession upon declara tion of title. The case of the plaintiffs, shortly stated, is that the disputed land was owned and possessed by one Judhisthir Mala. Judhisthir executed a deed of sale on 17-6-43 in favour of Birendra Chandra Majumdar who was the son of Prabhat Majumdar. Prabhat lived in joint mess and property with his brothers Prafulla Majumdar and Sarendra Majumdar. The purchase was really made out of the joint fund of the three brothers viz., Prabhat, Prafulla and Surendra. Prabhat died leaving behind 3 sons. Birendra, Janan and Satyendra and Surendra died leaving behind his widow Nirada Sundari. After the death of Birendra his properties were inherited by his widow Ashalata and his two sons Bimal and Parimal. It is said that Prafulla, Nirada, Janan Chandra, Satyendra and Ashalata executed an Ammukhtear nama in favour of Ali Akbar Bhuiya who was in possession of the disputed property and continued in possession by giving settle ment in favour of different persons. Further case of the plaintiffs is that the defendant in Poush 1360 B. S. dispossessed Ali Akbar and hence the present suit. The suit was contested by the defendant. His defence, inter alia, was that the disputed property belonged to Serajuddin on whose death the defendant purchased the disputed land from his sister Sachuni Bewa and daughter, Asbabanoo, The other heirs of Serajuddin, it was claimed, relinquished their interests in the beel and the appellant was in exclusive possession of the beel in his own right. The allegation that the purchase in the name of Birendra was made with the fund of the joint family consisting of his father and uncles, was denied in the written…