The plaintiffs have also filed an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for temporary injunction till disposal of the original suit for permanent injunction. The trial Court issued notice upon the defendant to show cause as to why an order of temporary injunction should not be passed in respect of the suit land within seven days of receipt of the notice.
Being aggrieved, the defendant filed Civil Revision No.19 of 2012 before the District Judge, Cox's Bazar which was allowed and accordingly the plaint of the plaintiffs was rejected.
Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgement and order of the revisional Court, the plaintiff filed Civil Revision No.2101 of 2014 before the High Court Division. A Single Bench by the impugned judgement and order discharged the Rule. Hence, the plaintiffs filed this petition for leave to appeal.
We are inclined to set aside the judgement and order of the High Court Division as well as the judgement and decree passed in Civil Revision No.19 of 2012 dated 24.04.2014 by the learned District Judge, Cox's Bazar. The order of the trial Court dated 01.10.2012 in restored. The trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit in accordance with law. This civil petition for leave to appeal is disposed of. ...Kari Moulavi Abdul Gafur =VS= Mohammad Nurullah, (Civil), 2019 (1) [6 LM (AD) 190] ....View Full Judgment

It is a well settled legal proposition that the Appellate Court is the last Court of fact and if the Appellate Court comes to a finding of fact on consideration of the evidence on record that cannot be disturbed or reversed by the High Court Division in exercising jurisdiction under section 115(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, unless it can be shown that the finding of the Appellate Court is perverse or contrary to the evidence on record or based on misreading of the evidence on record or on misconception of law. It is also a settled legal principle that in a suit for permanent injunction title can be looked into incidentally and the prime consideration is whether the plaintiff has got exclusive possession in the suit land. Keeping in view the above settled legal propositions, let us see whether the High Court Division rightly interfered with the judgment and decree of the Appellate Court. .....Karim Khan =VS= Kala Chand, (Civil), 2017 (2)– [3 LM (AD) 236] ....View Full Judgment

Remitted to the trial court permanent injunction– Defendants to institute independent proceedings to establish their right by filing an appropriate suit. In our view, as both parties claim right to the suit property through VHBC Society by virtue of sale deeds in their favour, the High Court rather than relegating the appellants/defendants to file a fresh suit, it would have been in order if the High Court remitted the matter back to the trial court to resolve the dispute after trial. The High Court erred in dismissing the appeal and relegating the appellants/defendants to file a fresh suit. As both the parties are claiming right to the registered sale deed originating from VHBC Society. The impugned judgment of the High Court as well as the trial court is set aside and the matter is remitted to the trial court for consideration of the matter afresh. The appellants/defendants are directed to file their written statement within four weeks from today and the trial court is directed to afford sufficient opportunity to both the parties to adduce their evidence and proceed with the matter in accordance with law. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter. .....Ravish =VS= Smt. R. Bharathi, (Civil), 2017 (2)– [3 LM (SC) 36] ....View Full Judgment

We find that P.W.1 in his evidence, admitted that his father and uncle obtained compensation on account of acquisition on 25.10.1960. If no compensation was paid in respect of .34 acre of land as shown in the schedule to the plaint, the plaintiff can claim compensation from the Government but he cannot file a suit for permanent injunction against the appellant and others. As soon as gazette notification was published the suit land shall be deemed to have been vested absolutely in the Government free from all encumbrances and as such, the plaintiff is not entitled to file a suit for permanent injunction for restraining the appellant and others from dispossessing him from the suit land till payment of compensation and allotment of rehabilitation plot. We find substances in this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment passed by the High Court Division affirming the judgments and decrees of the Courts below are set aside and the suit is dismissed. .....Bangladesh Railway =VS= Md. Sujaruddin, (Civil), 2018 (1) [4 LM (AD) 81] ....View Full Judgment

Permanent injunction–
In a suit for permanent injunction the plaintiff is to prove his prima facie title only and possession in the suit land. In this present suit the contesting defendant-against whom the decree for permanent injunction has been sought-has miserably failed to prove his title and also possession in the suit land by adducing any evidence whatsoever. On the other hand the plaintiffs have adduced sufficient evidence to prove their prima facie title and also exclusive possession in the suit land. In the absence on any evidence from the side of the defendant the evidence adduced by the plaintiffs were rightly considered by the High Court Division to be sufficient to prove plaintiffs’ prima facie title and possession in the suit land for getting a decree for permanent injunction. …Abdul Mannan @ Manik =VS= Akub Ali Howlader, (Civil), 2020 (1) [8 LM (AD) 146] ....View Full Judgment

Permanent injunction– A suit for permanent injunction the plaintiff must prove exclusive possession– In a suit for permanent injunction the plaintiff must prove exclusive possession, which in this case is disproved by plaintiff’s latest record of right which is in the name of the plaintiff’s predecessor in interest.
The High Court Division observed that exhibits 1-4 proved prima facie title of the plaintiff in the suit land. But the appellate Court failed to properly assess the evidence on record. It was also observed that the appellate Court did not take into consideration exhibit 5 which is the deed of sale and ignored the fact that the plaintiff got title to the suit property.
We find that the High Court Division has properly assessed the evidence on record, which the appellate Court had failed to do. We do not find any illegality or impropriety in the impugned judgement and order of the High Court Division. ...Zahuruddin Talukder =VS= Abdul Mannan, (Civil), 2021(1) [10 LM (AD) 88] ....View Full Judgment