| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1963 SLG 3588 = 1963 SLD 3588 = 1963 PLD 613 |
Dacca High Court
Second Appeal No. 104 of 1959, decided on 26th July 1961.
Presented By: M. R. Khan, J
Ahmad Sobhan for Appellant. Nasiruddin Chowdhury for
Respondents.
Second Appeal No. 104 of 1959, decided on 26th July 1961.
Presented By: M. R. Khan, J
Ahmad Sobhan for Appellant. Nasiruddin Chowdhury for
Respondents.
Sk. TARIFUDDIN----Appellant
VERSUS
Sk. SAMIR alias SAMIRUDDIN AND OTHERS----Respondents
Law:
Section:
Minor - Sale-deed signed by alleged guardian not as guardian or representative of minors-Document operative as if executed by guardian in individual capacity-Minor's interests remain unaffected. Banku Behari Mondal v. Banku Behari Hazra 47 C W N 288 rel. JUDGMENT This second appeal at the instance of the plaintiff No. 2 arises out of a suit for declaration of the title and recovery of khas possession. The facts of the case are as follows: --- There existed a raiyati holding recorded in khatian No. 6 of mouza Atkapara. Theholding consisted of C. S. Plots Nos. 28 and 29, the former having an area of 4.96 acres of land and the latter an area of '70 acres. The landlords obtained a decree for arrear of rent in Rent Suit No. 1896 of 1943, put the decree into execution and in Execution Case No. 1513 of 1943 auction-purchased the holding on 6-12-1943. There after, the landlords took delivery of possession of the lands on 4-5-1945. On the 3rd Aswin 1354 B. S. (20th September, 1947) the decree-holders auction-purchasers let out the suit land, viz., 411 decimals of land out of C. S. Plot No. 28 to the two plaintiffs at an annual .rental of Ks. 1-13-0. After the execution of a kabuliyat, the plaintiffs went to take possession of the suit land in the first part of Aswin 1354 B. S. but the defendants resisted and kept them out of possession. Defendant No. 1 alone contested the suit denying the alleged decree for rent, the salein execution of such a decree and the landlords taking delivery of possession of the lands of the holding. His case was that on the 4th of Falgoon, 1326 B. S. (February, 1920) the defendants' predecessors-in -interest purchased some land out of the said holding including the suit land and since then they have been in actual possession of that land without any interruption. He also denied to have resisted the plaintiffs when they allegedly went to take possession of the suit land. His further contention was that the decree said to have been obtained for arrear of rent was in effect a money decree as the entire body of landlords were not parties to the connected rent suit and the rent execution case and as such the…