P L D 1969 Dacca 654 (PLP)

SIDDIKY, C. J.‑In this Rule the petitioners, who are two in number, have challenged the judgment and order dated ,14‑9‑66 of the learned Subordinate Judge, 2nd Court Faridpur, who was the revisional authority, in terms of clause (b) of subsection (21 of section 8 of the Conciliation Courts Ordinance, 4961 (hereinafter called the Ordinance), on the ground ‑that the Conciliation Court of Kala Mirdha, having decided the case in favour of the petitioner by a majority of 4 to 1, the learned District Judge had no jurisdiction under the Ordinance to revise the order of the Conciliation Court. Facts in short are that the opposite‑parties Nos. 2 to 9 forcibly cut and removed grass valued at Rs. 200, caught and took away fish from the tank valued at Rs. 200 and cut and took away some branches of trees valued at Rs. 100, for which the petitioners filed a case under item 3 of section B of Part I of the Schedule to the Ordinance before the Kala Mirdha Conciliation Court. The Conciliation Court, which was legally constituted with two representatives no each of the parties, after taking such evidence as was necessary, held that the lands and tank were the properties of the petitioners and were in their possession, and the opposite parties 2 to 9, without any right, had caught fish, cut branches of trees and grass from those lands and took them away causing a damage of Rs. 500 to the petitioners, and accordingly they awarded a compensation of Rs: 500 to the petitioners by a majority decision of 4 to

1. The opposite‑parties, being aggrieved by this order of the Conciliation Court, moved the learned District Judge, Faridpur, under section 8(2)(b) of the Ordinance, and the matter was heard by the learned Subordinate Judge, 2nd Court, Faridpur, who reversed the decision of the Conciliation. Court on the ground that there were complicated questions of fact and law involved in the case which ousted the juris diction of the Conciliation Court from either entertaining or deciding the matter. From the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, it is found that judgments in Title Suit No. 97/51, Title Appeal No. 30/55, Criminal Case No. 578/61 and Criminal Appeal No. 18/62 were placed before him by the petitioners before us to show that Title Suit No. 97/51 out of which arose Title Appeal No. 30/55 was filed by opposite‑parties 2 to 9 claiming title to the properties which they lost both in the Trial Court 'and in the Appellate Court, and Criminal Case No. 578/61 out of which Criminal Appeal No. 18/62 arose was filed by the petitioners before us against the opposite‑parties, 2 to 9 who were convicted for theft committed from the self‑same lands involved in the present proceedings. These judgments of competent Courts of Law have clearly estab lished the title and possession of the petitioners before us in. respect of the properties involved in these proceedings, and as such the mere plea of the opposite‑parties 2 to 9 raised before the learned Subordinate Judge that they had title and: possession of the properties was a plea unsustainable on facts and in law. In these circumstances, we cannot approve of the finding of the learned Subordinate Judge that there were complicated questions of fact and law involved in the case which has ousted the jurisdiction of the Conciliation Court, for him to set aside the judgment and decree passed by the said Conciliation Court. The mere raising of plea of title does not confer title on person raising the same, more so, when the other side has, by judgments of competent Courts, established the title and possession with them. In the result, therefore, we find that the learned Sub ordinate Judge had interfered with the judgment and decree of the Conciliation Court in this case without any authority in law because the judgment of the Conciliation Court was passed by a majority of 4 to 1 which bars the jurisdiction of the revisional authority. In that view of the matter, this application succeeds and the Rule is made absolute but without any order as to costs. MAKSUM‑UL‑HAKIM, J.‑I agree. K. B. A. Rule made absolute,