The record is taken up for passing the necessary order. This is a suit for partition of the suit property. Perused the plaint, deposition of the plaintiff as P.W. 01-02, the documentary pieces of evidence marked as exhibits No. 01-03, and the suit record.
02. Upon such perusal and consideration
of the adduced shreds of evidence, it appears that the property comprised in the
schedule to the plaint belonged to one Ayub Ali Kabiraj, who instituted a
lawsuit bearing a number of O/C suit No. 04/2003 due to some errors in sketch map
of the suit lands and obtained a degree in that suit. After the demise of Ayub
Ali Kabiraj, the plaintiffs had been in possession of the suit lands as heirs.
Upon request for building a home on the suit land, the defendants are given
permissive possession of the suit land on a temporary basis. But, despite the plaintiffs have made a request to the defendants for removing themselves from the suit lands, the
defendants still possess the suit lands without the plaintiffs’ consent. The plaintiffs instituted this
is a suit for recovery of possession through ejectment.
03. Having perused the testimony of the
PW-01, SA khatian No. 107,227, and 169, and RS khatian No. 115 as well as the
judgment and decree passed in the other class suit No. 04/2003, the plaintiff
has proved his interest, ownership, and possession in his suit land with credible
evidence. Since there is no contrary material on record, it can legally be
opined that the plaintiff has successfully established his claims as such. Pertinently,
this is a suit that is being tried ex
parte; and there is no material on behalf of the defendant that goes
contrary to the plaintiff’s claims.
04. Generally, the 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.
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. The court holds that since the plaintiff’s case has
been proved by evidence as well as sufficient implications. Moreover, section 8
of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 recognizes any aggrieved person’s right to file
a lawsuit for such relief as prayed for in the instant suit. The plaintiff
filed the suit before a court of competent jurisdiction paying the proper court
fee. So, it is decided that the suit is maintainable in its current form and
manner. As such, it is decided that the plaintiff may get the relief as prayed
for.
In considering the aforesaid facts, documentary evidence, relevant laws, corroborative evidence, and encompassing conditions, it appears to the court that the Plaintiff has successfully proved her right, title to & interest in the suit landed property. As this is a suit for the recovery of possession through ejectment, the period of limitation for filing such a suit is twelve years from the date of dispossession [vide Article 142 of the 1st schedule of the Limitation Act, 1908]. It is also proved that the suit is filed within the period of limitation. On consideration and cognizance of the Pleadings, facts, surrounding circumstances of the case, pieces of evidence on record, and relevant laws, the Court is of view that the suit deserves to be decreed ex parte.
The court fee paid is sufficient.
Hence, it is ordered
that the suit be decreed ex parte against the defendants without any order as to costs. It is hereby ordered that the defendants do vacate the possession of the suit lands to the plaintiff within 30 days from the date, failing which the plaintiffs may recover possession of the suit lands scheduled to the plaint through the court in accordance with the law.
(Composed and corrected by)