High Court Division · Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
Samirendra Guha Roy v Shabana Khatun and others
First Appeal 504/2000 · Appeal allowed; suit dismissed · Decided 23 August 2026
The plaintiff, claiming to be the only surviving daughter of a non-Bengali owner killed in 1971, sued for declaration of title and recovery of possession of land and a house, and for a declaration that a sale deed in favour of defendant No. 5 was not binding on her. The defendants said the property had been declared abandoned under P.O. No. 16 of 1972 and Ordinance No. 54 of 1985 and sold to defendant No. 5, and that the suit was barred. The Subordinate Judge, 1st Court, Rajbari decreed the suit. On appeal by defendant No. 5, the High Court Division found that the plaintiff, who had converted her suit by amendment into one under section 8 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, had failed to prove by legal evidence her previous possession or the defendants' unlawful entry. It also held that the civil court lacked jurisdiction over enlistment and transfer of abandoned property, for which the Court of Settlement exists. The decree was set aside and the suit dismissed.
- Whether the plaintiff proved previous possession and subsequent dispossession as required in a suit for recovery of possession under section 8 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877.
- Whether the civil court could entertain a suit challenging the enlistment and sale of property as abandoned property.
- In a suit under section 8 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, the plaintiff must prove previous possession, subsequent dispossession and that the suit was filed within the statutory period of limitation.
- The plaintiff failed to prove by legal evidence her previous possession of the disputed property and the defendants' unlawful entry in January 1996.
- The civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain a suit challenging the enlistment of property as abandoned property and its transfer by the Abandoned Property Management Board by registered deed.
- Ordinance No. 54 of 1985 created the Court of Settlement to entertain claims of owners or their heirs, and a true heir may approach it if not otherwise barred.
- The trial court's decree was set aside and the suit dismissed on contest against defendant Nos. 1-3 and 5 and ex parte against the rest.
In a suit under Section 8 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 the plaintiff is required to prove this previous possession and subsequent dispossession and further prove that the suit has been filed within the statutory period of limitation.
