The record is taken up for passing necessary order. This is a suit for declaration of title and partition of the suit property. Perused the plaint, deposition of the plaintiff as P.W- 01, the documentary evidences marked as exhibits No. 01-02, and the case record.
Upon such perusal
and consideration of the adduced evidences, it appears that the plaintiffs
claim that the property comprised in CS khatian No. 13 belonged to one Ujal
Mondol, Sujal Mondol and Meru Mondol. Likewise, SA khatian No. 18 was also
published against the names of Ujal Mondol, Sujal Mondol and Meru Mondol. Sujal
Mondol died leaving behind his two daughters and two brothers. Meru Mondol died
leaving behind only brother Ujal Mondol. This way, Ujal Mondol became entitled
to the land of 5.34 acre. Later on, Ujal Mondol died leaving behind only son
Ramjan Ali, who becomes an owner of 5.34 acre of land, as his father belonged
to. It was also claimed that the RS khatian No. 28 was prepared his name, along
with some other stranger persons who do not have any entitlement to the suit
land. Rather, the RS record should have been published against only the name of
Ramjan ali.
The plaintiff as
PW-01 also claimed that Ramjan Ali then died leaving behind three daughters who
are the plaintiff Nos. 01-02 and the defendant No. 03. Accordingly, the plaintiffs
Nos. 01-02 claim the separate share of 3.56 acre of land out the suit property
since joint property is yet to be partitioned among the parties to the suit. In
addition, the plaintiffs also claimed their share to the suit land to be
declared for its’ erroneous entry of the names of persons except Ramjan Ali in
the RS record of rights. Considering the documents adduced and other evidence presented
before the court, it appears that the plaintiffs have proved their share of
3.56 acre of land inherited from their father Ramjan Ali. Nothing is proved to the contrary.
Generally, law is
settled that ‘the burden lies on the Plaintiff to prove his case and he must
succeed on his own strength only and not at the weakness of the adversary’ (3
BLC 6). Furthermore, In this respect, it is also pertinent to mention that ‘the
plaintiffs in order to succeed must establish their own case by credible
evidence and weakness of the defendants is no ground for awarding a decree in
favor of the plaintiffs. Since the plaintiff’s case has been proved by evidence
as well as sufficient implications as stated above, the plaintiffs may also get
relief under section of 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877. Thus, the suit
deserves to be decreed. As such, it is decided that the plaintiff may get the
relief as prayed for.
In considering the aforesaid facts, the Khatains, relevant laws, corroborative evidence and encompassing conditions, it appears to the court that the Plaintiffs have successfully proved their right, title to & interest in 3.56 acre land out of the suit landed property. It is also proved that the suit is filed within the period of limitation as well as the parties to the suit have community of interest in the suit property. Although a suit for partition determines the share of the co-sharers inter se, only plaintiff prayed for separate Saham in the present suit. For that reason, it can easily be concluded that no decision as to the Saham of residual suit property shall legally be given in the instant suit. As such, the Plaintiffs may get relief as prayed for. On consideration and cognizance of the Pleadings, facts, surrounding circumstances of the case, evidences on record and relevant laws, the Court is of view that the suit deserves to be decreed on contest.
Court fee paid is sufficient.
Hence,
it is ordered that
the suit be decreed in preliminary on the contest against the defendants without any order as to costs, allocating the plaintiff a separate Saham for 3.56acre of land on partition out of the suit landed property described in the schedule to the Plaint. The parties are directed to amicably effect partition of the suit properties among themselves by metes and bounds within 60 (sixty) days from the date, failing which, the plaintiffs shall be at liberty to have the partition through the court in accordance with law for making the preliminary decree final by appointing a civil court commissioner.
(Composed and corrected by)