Bangladesh Jute Corporation (Repeal) Act [XXIV of 1993] Case Reference

Bangladesh Jute Corporation (Repeal) Act [XXIV of 1993]

The suit property though was vested and non-resident property, but no more it remained so after its transfer, firstly to the Jute Trading Corporation and thereafter to the plaintiffs. The High Court Division, evidently, did not consider all these facts, circumstances and the evidence on record and consequently committed wrong in dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs on the finding only that the suit property was not mentioned in the purchase deed of Jute Trading Corporation.

The Appellate Division observed that in the purchase deed of the plaintiffs, the exhibit-5 it has been stated also that Bangladesh Jute Corporation was established in 1985 through an amalgamation agreement with the Jute Trading Corporation and other Jute Firms wherefrom Bangladesh Jute Corporation became the absolute owner of the assets of Jute Trading Corporation. In exhibit-5 it has been stated also that Bangladesh Jute Corporation was subsequently abolished by the Act No. XXIV/93 and all properties and liabilities of Bangladesh Jute Corporation vested with the Ministry of Jute of the Government of Bangladesh. The suit property was sold to the plaintiffs by the Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh represented by the Secretary of the Ministry of Jute through defunct Bangladesh Jute Corporation. The contesting defendants do not deny these facts that Bangladesh Jute Corporation acquired all the properties of Jute Trading Corporation and subsequently Government of Bangladesh acquired all the properties of Bangladesh Jute Corporation with the abolishment of the same. There is no denial of the fact also that Government of Bangladesh represented by the Secretary of Ministry of Jute sold the suit property to the plaintiffs by a registered sale deed-the exhibit-5. It should be mentioned here that by exhibit-5 the Government of Bangladesh, on its own behalf, and not on behalf of Bangladesh Jute Corporation, sold the suit property to the plaintiffs. Bangladesh Jute Corporation was not existing at that time of sale of the suit property to the plaintiffs by the Government and as such in the sale deed the exhibit-5 the Bangladesh Jute Corporation has been mentioned as "defunct". However, even if it is accepted that Government of Bangladesh did not transfer the suit property to Jute Trading Corporation by exhibit-4 then it stands that the suit property remained with the Government of Bangladesh. The plaintiffs, by purchase from Government of Bangladesh, therefore acquired valid title in the suit property. However, considering the above stated facts, circumstances and the evidence on record the Appellate Division finds that in this suit it has been well proved that the plaintiffs have right, title and possession in the suit property. The suit property though was vested and non- resident property, but no more it remained so after its transfer, firstly to the Jute Trad- ing Corporation and thereafter to the plain- tiffs. The High Court Division, evidently, did not consider all these facts, circumstances and the evidence on record and consequently committed wrong in dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs on the finding only that the suit property was not mentioned in the purchase deed of Jute Trading Corporation. The impugned judgment and decree of the High Court Division, therefore, cannot be sustained. In the circumstances this appeal is allowed. M. A. Wahab and others -Vs.- Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue) Narayanganj and others (Civil) 20 ALR (AD) 75-79