Declaration and recovery of possession – Plaint
Declaration and recovery of possession – Plaint
IN THE COURT OF 5TH JOINT DISTRICT JUDGE, DHAKA
TITLE SUIT NO. OF 2016
Son of late Abdul Hakim
of House No.23, Road No.12,
Dhanmondi, Police Station- Dhanmondi
- Ziaul Ahsan
son of Moinul Ahsan
of House No.45, Road No.3,
Azimpur, Police Station-Lalbag
Mohammadpur Sub-Registry Office
Registration Complex, Tejgaon
Police Station- Tejgaon. Dhaka
Suit for declaration and recovery of possession
Suit valued at Tk.95,00,000
The Plaintiff above named most respectfully
SHEWETH/ STATES AS FOLLOWS
- That the suit properties described in the schedule below (the suit properties) originally belonged to one Narendranath Majumdar, and his name was rightly recorded in the C.S Khatian.
- That while owning and possessing the suit properties, Narendranath Majumdar died leaving Khagendra Majumdar has his sole heir.
- That by a sale deed bearing No.264 deed dated 23rd October 1959, Khagendra sold the suit properties to Mr. Abdul Hakim, the father of the Plaintiff. Upon purchasing the suit properties, the father of the Plaintiff took the possession of the same. Thereafter, the S.A settlement operation began and his name was duly recorded in the S.A record of rights,
- That on the basis of S.A record, Mr. Abdul Hakim had been paying rents in respect of the suit land. Then in the year 1969, R.S settlement operation began and Mr. Abdul Hakim’s name was correctly recorded in the R.S Record of Rights. Thenceforth, Mr. Abdul Hakim had been paying rents on the basis of R.S record.
- That on 23rd March 2001, Mr. Abdul Hakim died leaving his wife Mrs. Selina Hakim, and his only son Azizul Hakim as his heirs.
- That on 5th October 2002, Mrs. Selina Hakim died, and thus the Plaintiff became the sole owner and possessor of the suit properties.
- That having become the owners and possessors of the suit properties, the Plaintiff mutated his name in respect of the suit properties vide Mutation Case No. 453/2002-2003 with the office of Assistant Commissioner (Land), Dhanmondi Circle. The Plaintiff also mutated his name with the Dhaka City Corporation. He also transferred the electricity, gas and other utility services in his name. Since then the Plaintiff had been paying all rents and bills in his own names.
- That since the Plaintiff was busy with his business, he felt it necessary to induct a caretaker to look after the scheduled properties. With that view in mind, in the last part of December 2002, the Plaintiff inducted the Defendant No.1 as the caretaker of the suit properties.
- That the Defendant No.1 was previously known to the Plaintiff since he was son of a distant relative of the Plaintiff, and used to frequent the Plaintiff’s house while his father was alive, and the Plaintiff’s father used to provide financial support according to his own means.
- That in the beginning of 2005, the Plaintiff got a good opportunity for investment in New Zealand, and hence he was required to leave Bangladesh for a long time. As a result, the Plaintiff entrusted all his documents relating to the suit properties to the Defendant No.1 and gave him instructions for looking after the properties in his absence. He also settled that he would send an amount of Tk. 10,000 (Taka ten thousand only) per month as the salary to the Defendant No.1, in exchange of which, he would take care of all the affairs of the scheduled properties on behalf of the Plaintiff and should keep the Plaintiff informed about all the concerned matters from time to time.
- That having settled such arrangement, the Plaintiff left for New Zealand on 24th January 2005. While in New Zealand, he maintained regular contact with the Defendant No.1 through posts and telephone calls. However, from the mid, 2015the Plaintiff lost all contacts with the Defendant No.1. The posts sent to him remained unanswered, the telephone calls made to him failed to reach him. These circumstances raised an alarm inside the Plaintiff who eventually decided to pay a short visit to Bangladesh to find out for himself what went wrong.
- That on 21st January 2016the Plaintiff came to Bangladesh and from the AirPort straightway went to the scheduled properties. Upon reaching the site of the scheduled properties, the Plaintiff found to his dismay that, on the main entrance of the building, a signboard was hanging containing the name of the Defendant No.1 as the owner of the properties.
- That the Plaintiff went inside the building and found the Defendant No.1 sitting on the veranda. The Plaintiff sought from him an explanation for his abstinence form communication with him for such a long time, and also about the hanging of signboard containing his own name in the front entrance.
- That at this point, the Defendant No.1 told the Plaintiff that in fact, he had purchased the land in December 2000 from the father of the Plaintiff, late Mr Abdul Hakim. However, Abdul Hakim requested him not to disclose the fact of sale to anyone lest the matter could upset his son and wife.
- That upon hearing this, the Plaintiff made a search in the office of the Sub Registry and found that a deed being deed No. 32154 was registered on 29th December 2000 purportedly showing that the father of the Plaintiff had sold the scheduled properties in favour of the Defendant.
- That it is stated that the father of the Plaintiff had never sold any part of the scheduled property to the Defendant No.1 or any other person. The Defendant No.1 in order to grab the scheduled properties fraudulently created the said deed which does not have any validity at all.
- That it is further stated that the said forged sale deed has cast cloud over the Plaintiff’s title of the scheduled properties, and as such a decree of declaration from this court dispelling the cloud is necessary accompanied by a decree directing the Defendant No.1 to convey the possession of the scheduled properties in favour of the Plaintiff.
- That the Plaintiff was dispossessed from the scheduled properties on 21st January 2016 when he was denied to have access to the suit properties.
- That the cause of action for filing the instant suit arose on 21st January 2016 when the Plaintiff came to learn about the existence of the forged deed created by the Defendant No.1, which arose within the Lalbagh Police Station, which is under the jurisdiction of this court, and the cause of action still subsists in the same place.
- That this being a suit for declaration of title and recovery of khas possession, ad Valorem court fee is paid herewith.
Wherefore it is most humbly prayed that your Honour would be pleased to grant the following relief(s):
a. A decree declaring that the Plaintiff is the 16 anna owner of the scheduled properties.
b. A decree declaring that the sale deed bearing No. 32154 dated 29th December 2000 registered with the Mohammadpur Sub-Registration Office, is void, ineffective and not binding upon the Plaintiff
c. A decree directing the Defendant No.1 to convey the possession of the scheduled properties in favour of the Plaintiff within a specified period, and on his failure to do so allow the Plaintiff to take possession through the court;
d. A decree awarding costs in favour of the Plaintiff.
e. Any other or further relief or relief to which the Plaintiff is entitled in law and equity.
All that piece and parcel of land situated under District- Dhaka, Police Station- Lalbagh, Mouja –Hajaribagh, C.S Khatain No. 343, C.S Plot No. 455, S.A. Khatian No. 233, S.A Plot No. 456, R. S Khatian No. 1098, R.S Plot No. 654, Municipal holding No. House No. 45 Road No.3. measuring an area of 12 katthas of land.
Butted and bounded by:
To the North House No. 44,
To the South House No. 46
To the West House No.34
To the East Road No. 3
The statements made hereinabove are true to the best of my knowledge and belief, and I sign this verification on this the ……day of June 2016.
Signature of the Plaintiff
For a Better view, Right-click the mouse over the document then click the full screen