Section 9 Recovery of immovable property.
Section 9 Plaintiffs may have some subsisting interest in suit Khatian as co -sharer. But their exclusive possession over the suit land as claimed in the schedule to the plaint and dispossession therefrom could not be proved by credible evidence for the purpose of obtaining a decree under section 9 of the Act. Abdullah hel Baki ( Md) Vs Rahima Khatun ( Civil),18 BLC (2014)- HCD-592
Read with section 9 and 42 of S R Act- When all the pw;s consistently corroborated one another and succeeded to prove the possession and dispossession of the plaintiffs are entited to get decree for declaration of title and recovery of possession of the suit land. Since the suit land is properly demarcated and the same is substantiated by the report of the Advocate Commissioner and other evidence, in such a situation prayer for partition is not necessary and thus the suit is very much maintainable in its present form.Ms Sufia Khatun and Others Vs Md shahabussinn and Others .3 NLJ ( 2014) HCD-514
Section 9 – In a suit under section 9 of the Specific Relief ACT,the plaintiff has to prove his possession and dispossession and he is to come to the court within 6 months from dispossession. In the instant case he PW’s contradicted one onother on materials points particularly as to presence of plaintiff at the time of dispossession by defendants. This trial rightly dismissed the suit. Nuru Mia Vs Asgor Ali and Others . LNJ(2013)-HCD-101
In the absence of any evidence as to the possession of the plaintiff prior to dispossession by the defendants from the suit land, the trial court,in decreeing the suit,committed a serious error of law resulting in an error in the decision occassioning failure of justice . Jahar Ali (md) Vs Ziarat Hossain
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.