A case of title by adverse possession and a case of title on the basis of documents cannot be claimed simultaneously but in the instant case the plaintiffs tried to do so— The case of the plaintiffs, in brief, is that on 23.05.1965 Kumudini Saha entered into a contract with the plaintiffs to sell the suit property for a consideration of Tk.1600/- and received a sum of Tk.1500/- as earnest money. In pursuance of this contract Kumudini executed a bainapatra on 26.05.1965 and delivered possession of the suit property to the plaintiffs who have since been in possession thereof. It was agreed that later on she would execute and register the kabala on receipt of the balance consideration money. On 24.03.1975 she executed the sale deed but the same could not be registered. The defendant No.1 denied the claim of the plaintiffs and asserted her title and possession in the suit property on the basis of her mother’s will.
A case of title by adverse possession and a case of title on the basis of documents cannot be claimed simultaneously but in the instant case the plaintiffs tried to do so. Appellate Division is of the view that the court of appeal and the High Court Division wrongly relied upon the receipt Ext.1, the agreement Ext.2 and the kabala Ext.3 as documents of title in favour of the plaintiffs and accordingly fell in error in decreeing the suit holding that the plaintiffs have title in the suit property. The High Court Division therefore committed an error of law requiring interference by us. .....Pushpa Rani Saha Podder =VS= Rash Mohan Saha, (Civil), 2025(2) [19 LM (AD) 168] ....View Full Judgment