Abdul Gani Howlader (Md.) and another Vs. Abdus Somed Howlader and others [51 DLR (1999) 522]
Background: The case is about a land title and possession dispute arising out of a decision and decree made on 8-5-86 by Subordinate Judge Bagerhat in Title Appeal No. 38/8. In Title Suit No. 631/1, Abdul Gani Howlader (Md.) and others asked for a declaration of title, proof of possession, and a perpetual injunction. They claimed ownership of both land inherited from their ancestors and land obtained through a variety of transactions. The case involves a land title and possession dispute arising from a decision and decree made by Subordinate Judge Bagerhat in Title Appeal No. 38/8 on 8/5/86. In Title Suit No. 631/1, Abdul Gani Howlader (Md.) and others asked for a declaration of title, proof of possession, and a perpetual injunction. They asserted ownership over land acquired via a variety of transactions as well as land inherited from their ancestors.38/8 on 8/5/86 by Subordinate Judge Bagerhat.Abdul Gani Howlader (Md.) and others requested a perpetual injunction, a declaration of title, and evidence of possession in Title Suit No. 631/1. They claimed ownership of both land inherited from their ancestors and land obtained through a variety of transactions.
Issue: Whether the plaintiffs can prove legal ownership and title of the challenged land in opposition to the defendants’ claim based on an auction purchase?
Argument: The plaintiffs argued that they had acquired valid title to the land through inheritance and purchase transactions. They denied the defendants’ claim, contending that the defendants were not the rightful owners of the land because they were the heirs of an auction buyer. But the defendants disputed the lawsuit, arguing that they were the rightful owners because their predecessor, Asmat Ali Howlader, had bought the item at auction. They contended that the plaintiffs had not shown that they were the rightful owners and occupants of the land.
Judgment: Decisions rendered by the trial court and the appellate court determined that the plaintiffs had not provided sufficient evidence to support their claims of title and occupation of the contested land. The courts also decided that the suit was prohibited in line with Code of Civil Procedure section 66.
Reasoning: The oral and written evidence that both sides submitted was evaluated by the courts, which then used that information to make rulings. They concluded that there was not enough evidence provided by the plaintiffs to establish their occupancy and title of the land. In addition, the courts took into account whether section 66 of the Code of Civil Procedure applied in this particular case.
Comments: After reviewing the case, the higher court determined that the decisions rendered by the lower courts did not contain any legal errors and dismissed the plaintiffs’ Rule. This implies that the courts followed the concept of due process and carefully considered all relevant data prior to rendering their judgements.
Background: The case is about a land title and possession dispute arising out of a decision and decree made on 8-5-86 by Subordinate Judge Bagerhat in Title Appeal No. 38/8. In Title Suit No. 631/1, Abdul Gani Howlader (Md.) and others asked for a declaration of title, proof of possession, and a perpetual injunction. They…