দায়বর্জন বিবৃতি (DISCLAIMER)

এই ওয়েবসাইটে প্রকাশিত রায় বা আদেশ আপনি google translation এর মাধ্যমে বাংলায় দেখতে পাচ্ছেন তা সুপ্রীম কোর্ট কর্তৃক বাংলায় অনূদিত নয়। জনসাধারণের বিচার-প্রক্রিয়ায় সহজ অভিগম্যতা নিশ্চিতকরণের অভিপ্রায়ে বাংলায় অনূদিত রায়-আদেশ দেখার ব্যবস্থা রাখা হয়েছে। অনূদিত রায় বা আদেশের অনুলিপি সইমোহরী/জাবেদা নকলের (certified copy) বিকল্প হিসেবে অথবা অন্য কোন উদ্দেশ্যে ব্যবহার করা যাবে না। রায় ও আদেশ বাস্তবায়নের ক্ষেত্রে মামলার নথিতে বিধৃত মূল রায় বা আদেশ প্রণিধানযোগ্য।
Microsoft Word - CR_1980_2010_DISCHARGED

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH HIGH COURT DIVISION

(CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION)

             Present:

Mr. Justice S M Kuddus Zaman

CIVIL REVISION NO.1980 OF 2010

In the matter of:

An application under Section 115(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

And

Md. Joynul Abedin and others

.... Petitioners

-Versus-

Md. Idris Ali Sheikh and others

.... Opposite parties

Mr. Shasti Sarker, Advocate

.... For the petitioner.

Mr. Md. Shahidul Islam, Advocate

…. For the opposite party Nos.1-3.

Heard on 28.11.2024 and 02.12.2024. Judgment on 03.12.2024.

This Rule was issued calling upon the opposite party Nos.1-3 to show  cause  as  to  why  the  impugned  judgment  and  decree  dated 30.11.2009 passed by the learned District Judge, Rajbari, in Title Appeal No.48  of  2008  affirming  the  judgment  and  decree  dated  18.05.2008 passed by the learned Assistant Judge, Pangsha, Rajbari in Title suit No.24 of 2006 in decreeing the suit should not be set aside and or pass such other or further order or orders as to this Court may seem fit and proper.

Facts in short are that opposite party as plaintiff instituted above suit for specific performance of unregistered sale deed dated 16.11.2005 for sale of 35 decimal land by defendant No.1 to the plaintiff.


1

It was alleged that above land belonged to Amzad Hossain who declared to sale above land and the plaintiff agreed to purchase the same at a price of Taka.2,00,000/- and on receipt of Taka.1,00,000/- defendant No.1 executed a bainapattra on 25.10.2005. On 16.11.2005 plaintiff  and  defendant  No.1  went  to  the  Sub-registry  Office  for execution  and  registration  of  a  kabala  deed  for  above  land  and  on receipt of remaining Taka 1,00,000/- defendant No.1 executed above sale  deed.  But  the  defendant  refused  to  registrar  above  document unless an additional Taka 20,000/- was paid. The plaintiff refused to pay  above  additional  money  and  defendant  No.1  escaped  from  the Registry Office.

Defendant  No.1,2  and  4  contested  above  suit  by  filing  a  joint

1 written statement alleging that defendant No.1 contracted to sale 172

decimals land to defendant Nos.2-4 for Taka 2,00,000/- and on receipt an advance of Taka 1,00,000/- executed a bainapatra on 18.05.2005 and executed  and  registered  a  sale  deed  on  13.04.2006  and  delivered

possession. Defendant  No.1 agreed  to  sale 1712  decimal land  to  the

plaintiff and a sale deed was accordingly written and he gave signature on the same in good faith in the Sub-registry Office. But subsequently

1

he read over above document and found that instead of 72 decimals

land  the  plaintiff  has  in  collusion  with  the  scribe  included  total  35

decimal land in above sale deed. As such he refused to register above sale deed and left the Sub-registry office.

At  trial  plaintiff  and  defendant  examined  3  witnesses  each. Documents of the plaintiffs were marked as Exhibit Nos.1-4 and those of the defendants were marked Exhibit Nos.Ka and Kha.

On  consideration  of  facts  and  circumstances  of  the  case  and evidence on record the learned Senior Assistant Judge decreed the suit.

Being aggrieved by above judgment and decree of the trial Court defendant No.1-4 as appellants preferred Title Appeal No.48 of 2008 to the  learned  District  Judge,  Rajbari  who  dismissed  the  appeal  and affirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court.

Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with above judgment and decree of the Court of Appeal below above appellants as petitioners moved to this court and obtained this rule.

Mr. Shasti Sarker, learned Advocate for the petitioners submits that  the  deed  of  contract  dated  16.11.2005  being  not  a  registered document this suit was barred by section 17(a) of the Registration Act, 1908. It is true that the registered kabala deed of defendant Nos.2-4 was registered on 13.04.2006 but above sale deed was registered pursuant to the  deed  of  bainapatra  executed  by  defendant  No.1  in  favor  of defendant Nos.2-4 on 18.05.2005 long before the alleged unregistered sale deed dated 16.11.2005 of the plaintiff. As such above registered kabala deed of defendant Nos.2-4 is not hit by Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

Mr.  Md.  Shahidul  Islam,  learned  advocate  for  opposite  party Nos.1-3 submits that defendant No.1 has clearly admitted both in the written statement and in his evidence as DW1 that he went to Sub- registry  Office  where  the  impugned  unregistered  sale  deed  of  the plaintiff  was  written  and  he  executed  the  same  by  putting  his

1

signatures. Defendant No.1 has claimed that he sold 172 decimal land

not 35 decimal. Defendant No.1 was required to prove above claim of collusion  but  defendant  No.1  did  not  make  any  endeavor  to  prove above claim by legal evidence. The learned Judges of both the Courts below  further  held  that  the  alleged  bainapatra  dated  18.05.2005  of defendant Nos.2-4 was a collusive and anti dated document created for the purpose of this suit. In above view of the facts and circumstances of the case and evidence on record the learned Judge of the trial Court rightly  decreed  the  suit  and  the  leaned  District  Judge  on  a  correct appreciation of materials on record rightly dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment and decree of the trial Court which calls for no interference.

I have considered the submissions of the learned Advocates for the respective parties and carefully examined all materials on record.

It  is  admitted  that  disputed  35  decimal  land  belonged  to defendant no.1 who went to the Sub-registry Office with the plaintiff for execution and registration of a sale deed and the impugned sale deed of the plaintiff was written and executed by defendant No.1 but the same was not registered.

In this regard defendant No.1 claimed that he contracted to sale

1712 decimal land but after executing above unregistered sale deed he

1

discovered that instead of 172  decimal his total 35 decimal land was

included in above sale deed. It appears unusual that defendant No.1 would execute the sale deed (Exhibit No.4) without knowing about the content and quality of the land and after executing the document he

discovered that instead of 1721 decimal land 35 decimal was written in

above deed.

Above  claim  of  the  defendant  is  directly  against  the  terms  of above written instruments (Exhibit No.4) to which defendant No.1 is a party. As such the burden to prove above claim of fraud or collusion lies  upon  defendant  No.1.  But  defendant  No.1  did  not  make  any endeavor to prove above allegation of collusion or fraud by examining any witness of above sale deed or any person who was present in the talk of above sale.

As such defendant No.1 has failed to prove by legal evidence that

1

in above sale deed instead of 172 decimal land the plaintiff in collusion

with the scribe wrote 35 decimal.

As  far  as  the  submission  of  the  learned  Advocate  for  the petitioner that since Exhibit No.4 is an unregistered deed of contract for sale of land the same is not admissible in evidence pursuant to Section 17A of the Registration Act, 1908 is concerned it has been mentioned above that Exhibit No.4 is in fact not a deed o contract but a deed for sale  of  land.  It  is  admitted  that  above  sale  deed  was  written  and executed by defendant No.1 sitting in the relevant Sub-registry Office but defendant No.1 refused to register the same. As such this was in fact a suit for directing defendant No.1 to register above unregistered sale deed (Exhibit No.4) but the suit has been designated as a suit for a specific performance of contract.

The  learned  Advocate  for  the  petitioner  further  submits  that before execution of above sale deed dated 13.04.2006 (Exhibit No.4)

1 defendant No.1 executed a bainapatra on 18.05.2005 for 72  decimal

land and delivered possession to defendant No.3-4 and pursuant to above bainapatra subsequently executed and registered a kabala deed on 13.04.2006.

It  turns  from  the  registered  kabala  deed  dated  13.04.2006  of defendant  Nos.2-4  that  in  above  document  there  is  no  reference  of bainapatra  dated  18.05.2005  allegedly  executed  by  defendant  No.1. There is no mention in above kabala deed that the same was being executed  pursuant  to  above  bainapatra  dated  18.05.2005.  In  their written statement defendants did not mention that pursuant to above bainapatra  defendant  No.1  delivered  possession  of  above  land  to defendant Nos.2-6. On a detailed analysis of the evidence on record the learned Judges of both the Courts below rightly and concurrently held that  above  bainapatra  dated  18.05.2005  of  defendant  Nos.2-4  was  a collusive and fraudulent document.

It turns out from record this suit was filed on 14.03.2006 and above  unregistered  kabala  deed  (Exhibit  No.4)  was  executed  by defendant  No.1  on  16.11.2005  and  during  the  pendency  of  this suit

1

defendant  No.1  transferred  172  decimal  land  out  of  disputed  35

decimal  to  defendant  Nos.2-4  by  registered  kabala  deed  dated 13.04.2006. As such above kabala deed of defendant Nos.2-4 is hit by section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

In  above  view  of  the  facts  and  circumstance  of  the  case  and evidence on record I am unable to find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge in Title Appeal No.48 of 2008 on 13.11.2009 nor I find any substance in this civil  revisional  application  under  Section  115(1)  of  Code  of  Civil Procedure.

In the result the Rule is discharged.

However, there is no order as to costs.

Send down the lower Courts record immediately.

MD. MASUDUR RAHMAN     BENCH OFFICER