High Court Division · Civil Revisional Jurisdiction
Md. Zakir Hossen and others v Md. Shakhawat Hossen (Shamim) and others
Civil Revision 2496/2025 · Rule discharged · Decided 10 September 2026
The plaintiffs filed Civil Suit No. 04 of 2024 before the Assistant Judge, Belabo, Narsingdi for declaration of title, claiming land on which they had established a madrasah and were building, and sought a temporary injunction. The defendants said the land was ejmali property held by inheritance, and that the plaintiffs had blocked an old pathway. The trial court granted the injunction, finding that the land, though joint in the C.S. record, was recorded separately in the S.A. and R.S. records and that the balance of convenience favoured the plaintiffs. The Additional District Judge, 2nd Court, Narsingdi dismissed the defendants' appeal. On the defendants' revision, the High Court Division found prima facie possession and balance of convenience in the plaintiffs' favour and saw no reason to disturb these concurrent findings. Whether the land is ejmali was left to be proved at trial. It discharged the Rule and directed early disposal of the suit.
- Whether the courts below were right to grant a temporary injunction to the plaintiffs where the defendants claimed the suit land was joint (ejmali) property.
- Whether the revisional court should interfere with concurrent findings of prima facie possession and balance of convenience.
- Where the courts below concurrently found that the plaintiffs were prima facie in possession and that the balance of convenience lay with them, there was no reason to interfere with those findings of fact in revision.
- As a general rule a co-sharer cannot obtain an injunction against another co-sharer in ejmali property unless there is an exceptional case, but whether the suit land is ejmali is a matter to be proved by evidence at trial.
- If the suit ultimately fails and the defendants prove title and possession, they will get the suit land together with the building and structures constructed on it.
- The trial court was directed to dispose of the suit as early as possible, being a simple suit for declaration of title.
Since the plaintiff-opposite parties are in possession of the suit land which has been concurrently found by the courts below hence I found no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact.
