Present:

Mr. Justice Sheikh Abdul Awal

and

Mr. Justice Md. Mansur Alam

First Appeal No. 24 of 2023 In the Matter of:

Government of Bangladesh represented by the Deputy Commissioner, Gazipur and others

                               ….......Defendant-appellant.

-Versus-

Md. Kamal Khan.

                   …….....Plaintiff-respondents. Mr. Md. Yusuf Ali, D.A.G with

Mr. Siddik Ali, A.A.G with

Ms. Ishrat Jahan, A.A.G with

Ms. Sabina Yasmin Nira, A.A.G

……. For the appellant. Mr. Mehrab Hasan, Advocate

….… For the Respondents.

Heard on 04.05.2025, 14.05.2025 and Judgment on 18.05.2025.

Sheikh Abdul Awal, J:

This first appeal at the instance of the plaintiff-appellant is directed  against  the  judgment  and  decree  dated  17.08.2015 (decree sign on 23.08.2015) passed by the learned Joint District Judge, Additional Court, Dhaka in Title Suit No. 324 of 2012 decreeing the suit.

Material facts of the case, briefly, are that the respondents as plaintiffs filed Title Suit No. 334 of 2012 in the Court of the learned Additional Joint District Judge, Gazipur for declaration

of title over the suit land as described in the schedule of then plaint  stating,  inter-alia,  that  one  Junab  Ali  was  the  original owner of suit land totaling 5.22 acre under C.S. mouza No. 419 Sreepur police station, Gazipur; that while the said Junab Ali was owning and possessing the suit land totaling 5.22 acre land under  C.S.  mouza  No.  419, Police  station  Sreepur,  District Gazipur,he  transferred the same by registered deed No. 1272 dated 18.05.1952 to Momtaj Ali, Adur Rahman, Robi Uddin Sabdul Ali, Mafiz Uddin, Mokasdes Ali, Anser Ali and Nasir Uddin  and  also  handed  over  possession  to  them.  Thereafter, while the said Momtaj Ali and others were in possession over the suit land, S. A. Khotian No. 744, Dag no. 2040, 2041 and 2042  relating to 5.22 acre prepared correctly in their name. Thereafter, S.A. recorded owner Rabir Uddin by registered deed No. 1967 dated 20. 02.1966 transferred 35 Shatok land to one Abdur  Rahman  and  also  handed  over  possession  to  him. Thereafter, Abdur Rahman by registered deed No. 1711 dated 14.02.1984  transferred  the  said  35  Shatok  land  to  Md. Mozammel Haque, Md. Shamsul Haque, Md. Nazrul Haque and Md. Fazlul Haque and also handed over possession to them. Thereafter, Haji Salim Uddin transferred his land to his 4 sons namely, Md.  Mozammel  Haque,  Md.  Shamsul  Haque,  Md. Nazrul Haque and Md. Fazlul Haque on 14.02.1984 by Ewaz Heba deed No 1749 and handed over possession. Thereafter, Salim Uddin made an Ewaz deed No. 6763 dated 30.07.1984 with Kodom Ali son of S. A. recorded owner . The legal hairs of S. A. recoded owner Momtaj Ali transferred 52 ½ f satok land by  registered  deed  No.  8675  dated  18.10.1984  to  Md. Mozammel Haque, Md. Shamsul Haque, Md. Nazrul Haque and Md. Fazlul Haque and also handed over possession to them. Thereafter, Haji Salim Uddin transferred his 26 ¼ shatok land by  Ewaz  Heba  deed  No,  9688  dated  19.11.1984  to  Md. Mozammel Haque, Md. Shamsul Haque, Md. Nazrul Haque and Md. Fazlul Haque and also handed over possession to them. Thereafter,  S.  A.  recoded  owner  Ansar  Ali  and  others  on 11.04.1990 transferred their 47 ¼ shatok land by sab- kabala deed No. 4248 to Md. Mozammel Haque, Md. Shamsul Haque, Md. Nazrul Haque and Md. Fazlul Haque and also handed over possession  to  them.  Thereafter,  Md.  Mozammel  Haque  and others  as  owner  of  2½  acre  land  mutated  their  name  by jamabhag Noti No. 120/97-98 and opened D.C.R. on 18.06.1998 and possessing the suit said. Thereafter, Md. Mozammel Haque, Md. Shamsul Haque, Md. Nazrul Haque and Md. Fazlul Haque while were owing and possessing the suit land transferred their 70 Shatok land on 03.10.2006 by kabala deed No. 7284 and 52 Shatok land by sub-kabala deed No. 9080 dated 13.12.2006 and 26 Shatok land by sub-kabala deed No. 1575 dated 5.03.2007 and by sub-kabala deed No. 3770 dated 08.04.2009 35 Shatok land  to  plaintiff  Md.  Kamal  Khan  and  also  handed  over possession to him. In this way the plaintiff Md. Kamal Khan became  owner  totaling  1.83  acre  land  and  he  constructed boundary wall and installed 12 fit gate therein and thereafter erected a tin shed house and started living thereon. The plaintiff also planted 25 jack trees therein. Thereafter, at one stage the plaintiff  went  to  Bank  for  loan  to  make  a  farm  on  the  suit property while Bank authority asked the plaintiff to come with

up-to-date rent receipts and thereafter, the plaintiff went to local toshil office for giving rent on 16.04.2009 when toshilder of local  office  disclosed  that  the  property  in  question  has  been recorded  in  R.S.  Khatian  in  the  name  of  Government  and thereafter, on search in record room the plaintiff came to know R.S.  khatian  of  the  property  in  question  has  been  wrongly recorded in the name of Government, which cast a cloud on their ownership over the suit land and hence, the suit.

Defendants entered appearance in the suit and filed written statements denying all the material allegations made in the plaint contending,  inter-alia,  that  the  suit  is  not  maintainable in its present form and manner, the plaintiff filed the suit on false averments and the plaintiff has/ had no right, title and possession in the suit land, R. S. record rightly published in the name of the Government and plaintiff used a number of forged deeds to grab the Government property and as such, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

The learned Joint District Judge, Gazipur on the pleadings of the parties framed the following 5 issues for determination:

1. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form and manner?
2. Whether the suit is barred by limitation?
3. Whether the suit is bad for defect of parties?
4. Whether  the  plaintiff  has/  had  any  right,  title  and possession in the suit land?
5. Whether  the  plaintiff  is  entitled  to  get  a  decree,   as prayed for?

At the trial the plaintiff side examined 6 witnesses and exhibited  a  series  of  documents,   while  the  defendant  side examined 1 witness to prove their respective cases.

The learned Additional Joint District Judge, Gazipur  after hearing the parties by his judgment and decree dated 17.08.2015 decreed the suit.

Being aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned judgment and decree dated 17.08.2015 passed by the learned Additional Joint District  Judge,  Additional  Court,  Gazipur  the  Government- defendant preferred this First Appeal.

Mr. Md. Siddik Ali, the learned Assistant Attorney General appearing  for  defendant-appellant  in  the  course  of  argument takes  us  through  the  plaint,  written  statements,  deposition of witnesses and other materials on record and then submits that the original owner of the suit land was Zaminder Ram Kishare, S.A. khatian  was  wrongly  published  in  the  name  of  some private individuals and R.S. khatian was correctly recorded in the name of the Government in khas khatian No.1, the plaintiff has/ had no right, title and possession in the suit land and as such, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

In reply, Mr. Mehrab Hasan, the learned Advocate for the plaintiff-respondents  submits  that  S.A.  khatian  No.  744 (Ext. 2/1)  was  prepared  rightly  in  the  name  of  some  private individuals, who  transferred their  ryoti right  through deed dated 18.05.1952 (Ext.- 16). He adds that it is well settled by out Apex court that any positive statement regarding acquiring ownership and possession in any kind of title deeds, would be deemed as correct. Ref: 54 DLR (AD) 106 and 19 DLR (HCD) 179.

Mr. AAG further submits that the Mutation No. 120/97-98 and jote No. 1539 was created and false, only one rent receipt has  been  shown  to  be  paid  rent  but  dag  number  was  not mentioned in that rent receipt which proves that it was false and created document, the rent receipt without mentioning any dag and khatian number is not proved the possession. He adds that ownership of the  plaintiff  as shown  from the period of C.S. record but no rent receipt of C.S. & S.A. survey period was produced before the Court as evidence although the trial court without  considering  all  these  vital  aspects  of  the  case mechanically decreed the suit.

In reply, the learned Advocate for the respondent submits that rent receipt (Ext. 17-kha) prepared by the concerned officer of the Government in which the authority generally cited only khatian number without citing any plot number. So, rent receipt given by the then Tahsilder, Mouna Tahshil office citing only khatian number is correct.

Thirdly, the learned Assistant Attorney  General submits that exhibit Nos. 6-17 and 20 all the Registered deeds have been shown  from  the  year  1984  to  1990  and  in  that  period  R.S. Record was the last and final record although no R.S. dag was mentioned  in  those  registered  deeds  which  proves  by suppressing the facts they created a series of deeds only to grab the Government property and as such, the impugned Judgment and decree of the learned trial court is liable to be set aside.

To this, the learned Advocate for the plaintiff-respondent submits,  that it is on record that no one challenged the old registered deeds in any point of time and that the registered deeds are still valid documents and therefore, without any legal basis it cannot be said that the deeds are forged and created. He adds that all these registered deeds are duly acted upon.

Finally,  the  learned  Assistant  Attorney  General  submits that the plaintiff side has totally failed to prove their possession by adducing sufficient oral and documentary evidence and it is on record that the Government has been possessing the land as per last and final record (R.S. khatian No.1) and the suit property is Government’s valuable property and as such, at any rate the impugned judgment is liable to be set-aside.

On the other hand, the learned Advocate for the plaintiff- respondent referring a series of documents namely, C.S & S.A khatian (Ext. Nos. 2 &2/1), registered and ewaz deeds (Ext. Nos. 1-16  &18,  mutation  (Ext.-17),  DCR  (Ext.  17-Ka)  and  rent receipt (Ext.-kha) submits that plaintiff has been chronologically possessing the suit land over a period of 76 years and in this case the plaintiff to prove his right, title and possession over the suit land exhibited 16 registered deeds, C.S & S.A khatian, DCR and rent receipt and the trial court on considering all these aspects of the case justly decreed the suit.

These are the points which were argued by the learned Advocates  for  the  respective  parties.  Now,  to  deal  with  the contentions  raised  by  the  parties  before  us  it  would  be convenient for us to decide first whether the trial Court below committed any error in finding that the plaintiffs by adducing sufficient evidence have been succeeded to prove their right, title and possession over the suit land.

On scrutiny of the record, it appears that one Md. Kamal Kahan as plaintiff filed Title suit no. 334 of 2012 impleading the  Government  of  Bangladesh,   represented  by  the  deputy commissioner, Gazipur and 2 others as defendants praying the following reliefs:

The learned Additional Joint District Judge, Gazipur  after hearing the case by his judgment and decree dated 17.08.2015 decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff-respondent.

Now, to justify the findings of the trial court as to right, title and possession of the parties in the suit land, let us advert to the evidence of PWs and DW-1.

PW-1, Azizur Rahman stated in his deposition as to their
chorological  ownership  in  the  suit  land  by  way  of  so  many
registered deeds. PW-1 also stated that- “বািদ খিরদ দিলেল মািলক হইয়া খিরদ

জিমর চার িদেক ইেটর সীমানা  াচীর িনমা  ণ কিরয়া এবং ১২ িফট গইট িনমা  ণ কিরয়ােছ ও  গইেট সাইন

বাড লাগাইয়ােছন। বািদ নািলশী ভূিম  েত০১  ও  ন  সড ঘর  তরী কিরয়া  লাকজেনর মাধ েম  ভাগ দখেল আেছন। নািলশী ভূিম  েত১৫  কাঠাল গাছ আেছ। তাহা ছাড়াও অন ান  গাছ আেছ।  গইেট লাগােনা সাইন  বােড বািদ  য় সূ   েমািলক হওয়ার বণন  া  দওয়া আেছ। বািদ নািলশী ভূিম  েতখামার করার জন  ব াংেকর  লান িনেত  গেল ব াংক কমকত া জিম খািরজ কিরয়া খাজনা পিরেশাধ কিরয়া

আিসেত বেলন।” This witness proved and exhibited total 22 documents including S & S.A khatian (Ext. Nos. 2 &2/1), registered sub- kabala deeds and ewaz deeds (Ext. Nos. 1-16 &18, mutation

(Ext.-17), DCR (Ext. 17-Ka) and rent receipt (Ext.-kha). PW-2, Siddiqur Rahman stated in his deposition that: “আিম নািলশী স  ি  িচিন। নািলশী স  ি  হইেত আমার বাড়ী আধা িকঃ িমঃ। নািলশী স  ি র উ ের রা া, পূ- ে বরা া, দি েণ- শরাফত আলী ও নবাব আলীর বসত, পি েম- নবাব আলী গং। নািলশী স  ি  ইেটর বাউ ারী  দওয়া। বাউ ারীর িভতের আম, কাঠােলর বাগান আেছ, সি  চাষ হয়। নািলশী স  ি  ব ি রা  ভাগ দখল

কিরেতেছ তাহা আিম  ছাট  বলা হইেত  দিখেতিছ। সরকার এই স  ি  কখনও  ভাগ দখল কের নাই।

নািলশী স  ি র চার পােশ সরকােরর  কান স  ি  নাই।” PW-3, Sarafat Ali stated in

his deposition that- “আিম নািলশী জিম িচিন। নািলশী জিম আমার বাড়ীর কােছ। এই স  ি  বািদ কামাল দখল কের। তাহার এখােন আম, কাঁঠ াগ লাছ আেছ। এই স  ি র উ ের ও পূেব- 

রা া, দি েণ- নবাব আলী গং এবং পি েম- নবাব আলী গং। সরকার এই স  ি  কখনও  ভাগ দখল কের নাই। বািদেদর দীঘি  দন ধিরয়া  ভাগ দখল কিরেতেছ।” PW-4, Md. Somed Ali stated

in his deposition that- “আিম নািলশী স  ি  িচিন। আমার বাড়ীর পােশর বািড় জিম। স  ি   বািদ িকিনয়া মািলক।  কনার পর বািদ বাউ ারী ওয়াল কিরয়া আম, কাঁঠােল রবাগান কিরয়ােছন। সরকারে আিম কখনও এই স  ি    ভাগ দখল কিরেত  দিখ নাই।” PW-5, Sirajul Haque stated in his deposition that- “আিম নািলশী স  ি  ও বাদীেক িচিন । বািদ

য় সূ   েপাইয়া বাউ ারী ওয়াল িদয়া আম, কাঁঠােল রবাগান কির া  ভাগ দখল কের এই জিমর দি েণ-নবাব গং, পূ- ে বসড়ক, উ ের- সড়ক, পি েম- নবাব গং এই  চৗহা ীেত বািদ ১.৮৩ একর দখল কের। এই স  ি    কান িদন সরকার  ভাগ দখল কের নাই।”

PW-6, Md. Sultan Uddin, Assistant Record Keeper stated in

his deposition that- “আিম অদ  আদালেতর তলব মেত  পরুসাব-  রিজি  অিফেসর ১৯৯০ সােলর ৫৭ নং ভিলউম িনয়া আিসয়ািছ। এই ভিলউেমর ১৩৩-১৩৬ নং প ৃায় ৪২৪৮ নং দিলল তািরখ ১১/৪/১৯৯০ এর িববরণ িলিপ আেছ। আমােক  দখােনা সই  মাহর নকেলর সিহত বালােমর িলিপর হুব হু িমল আেছ। এই  সই সই  মাহর নকল।  দশন  ী-১৮।”

The  defendant  side  cross-examined  these  witnesses  but failed to find out any contradiction in the evidence of P Ws. In

view of the evidence of PWs, it appears that PW Nos. 1-5 are

local  people,  who  in  their  respective  testimony  categorically stated that the plaintiff has been possessing the suit land and the Government never possessed the suit land. PW-1 in his evidence exhibited  in  all  16  old  registered  deeds  to  prove  their chronological ownership in the suit land.

On the other hand, DW-1, Md. Akkas Ali, Union Assistant Land Officer stated that on getting power he is giving evidence

on behalf of the Government, who proved the said power as “Ext.-Ka”. This witness stated in his evidence that the suit land

is under the control of Government and R.S. khatian No.1 prepared in the name of Government. This witness proved the same as “Ext.-kha”. This witness also stated that the plaintiff never possessed the suit land, C.S. and S.A. khatians wrongly recorded the name of private individuals. This witness also stated that the plaintiff filed the case on false averments. In cross, this witness stated that- “R. S.  রকড মূ েসলরকার মািলক খাধীনতার পূ ব হইেত R. S. সরকােরর নােম হওয়ায় সরকার C.S. ও S. A. িবষেয় সরকার  কান পদে প  নয় নাই। বত মােন C.S. ও S. A.  রকড িবষেয় ভূ িঅমিফেস  কান কাজ হয় না। সরকার C. S. ও S. A. খিতয়ােনর িবরেু  কান  িতকার চায় নাই। C.S. ও S. A. খিতয়ান ভু িলছল। C. S. ও S.

A.  রকেড র মািলকেদর হ া র স  েক আমার  ান নাই। R. S. এর পূ েস বরকার মািলক িছল এমন কান কাগজ দািখল কির নাই। দিলল  রিজি  কিরেত ভূ িঅমিফেসর  কান অনমুিত লােগ না। বািদ বা

তাঁহার পব  ূত  বেদর দিলেলর িবরেু সরকার  কান  িতকার চায় নাই।” This testimony of the  defendant's  witness  (DW-1)  is  not  backed  up  by  other witnesses or evidence. This lack of corroboration can weaken the defense's case and make it more difficult for the court to accept the witness's statements as true.

On perusal of the evidence and materials on record,  it appears that the plaintiff to prove his case exhibited a series of registered deeds since 1952 to 2009 in total 16 registered deeds. It further appears that registered deeds were duly acted upon. Further all those registered are more than 30 (forty) years old registered documents were produced and exhibited before the Court without any objection. Law is well settled in this regard that once such a document more than 30 years old is produced from a proper custody is presumed to be authentic as per section 90 of the Evidence Act.

The sole DW-1 in his evidence stated that the Government did not take any step against those registered deeds. However, in the  course  of  his  argument  the  learned  Assistant  Attorney General  submits  that  in  this  case  the  plaintiff  to  grab  the Government’s property submitted a number of forged registered deed.  The  record  reveals  that  the  disputed  documents  are registered.  We  are,  therefore,  guided  by  the  settled  legal principle that a document is presumed to be genuine if the same is registered, as held by this Court in number of cases. There is a presumption that a registered document is validly executed. A registered document, therefore, prima facie would be valid in law. The onus of proof, thus, would be on a person who leads evidence to rebut the presumption. In the instant case, appellant has  not  been  able  to  rebut  the  said  presumption.  Mere submission  as  to  genuineness  of  the  registered  documents without any legal basis cannot be said that more than 30 years old registered deeds are forged and created or not authentic.

 We have already indicated that in this case the plaintiff to prove his right, title and possession in the suit land exhibited a series of documents including 16 registered deeds, rent receipts etc. and examined 5 witnesses namely, PW-1, PW-2, PW-3, PW-4 and PW-5 and all these witnesses corroborated with each other in respect of title and possession of the plaintiff over the suit land.

The  trial  court  as  first  court  of  fact  upon  a  lengthy consideration of the facts and law involved in the case observed that the plaintiff has been succeeded to prove his case.

Mr.  Siddik  Ali,  the  learned  Assistant  Attorney  General could not point out any misreading or non reading of evidence. It is true that the plaintiff is to prove his title in all the cases. But it is now settled that the plaintiff is not always required to prove his title to the hilt rather if he is able to prove his title better than that of his adversary it is enough.

In this case the plaintiff side examined 6 PWs and it is on record all the PWs in their respective evidence category stated as to  title  and possession of  the plaintiffs  in  the suit  land. The evidence  of  PWs  remained  unshaken  in  the  cross examination and all the PWs corroborated their evidence with each other. Thus it appears that the plaintiff respondent, in this case has been able to prove better title against the defendants and having possessing the suit land chronologically more than 60 years, as such, the plaintiff is entitled to a decree. Therefore, we find no substance in either of the contentions as raised by the learned Assistant Attorney General for the Appellant.

On an analysis of the impugned judgment and decree, we find no flaw in the reasonings of the trial Court or any ground to assail the same.

In any view of the matter, having regard to the fact as aforesaid, this appeal must fail. 

In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The judgment and decree dated 17.08.2015 (decree sign on 23.08.2015) passed by the learned Joint District Judge, Additional Court, Dhaka in Title Suit No. 324 of 2012 is hereby maintained.

In the facts and circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs.

Send down the LC Records at once.

Md. Mansur Alam, J:

I agree.