Judgment : High Court Division Full List
 
Case Type
Case/Tender Number
Year
Parties
Short Description
 

Case Number Parties Short Description
351
Md. Jahid Hasan Vs. The State
352
Md. Riaz Vs. The State
353
Md. Harun @ Harun Dakat Vs. The State
354
Mohammad Riaz Vs. The State
355
Md. Ramjan Ali Sheikh Vs. The State
356
Iqbal Hossain Vs. The State
357
Md. Abdul Hai Bepari Vs. The State
358
Alim Sikder Vs. The State
359
Md. Monir Hossain @ Jony Vs. The State
360
Badsha Jahangir Vs. The State
361
Md. Mahabur Ali Vs. The State
362
Md. Rashed Mia Vs. The State
363
Farjana Akter Vs. The State
364
Md. Ashraful Islam Vs. The State
365
Asma Begum Vs. The State
366
Md. Intaz Ali Vs. The State
367
Bhuban Saha Vs. The State
368
Md. Al Amin Vs. The State
369
Md. Al Amin @ Babu Vs. The State
370
Md. Abul Hossain Vs. The State
371
Md. Mizanur Rahman Vs. The State
372
Sree Chandan Kumar Vs. The State
373
Md. Bishal Fakir Vs. The State
374
Md. Abdullah Istiaq Vs. The State
375
376
The Impulse Builders, represented by the Managing Director Mohiul Islam Chowdhury, V.I.P Road, Rikabir Bazar, P. S. and District: Sylhet. … Defendant-appellant -VersusHaji Sheikh Hasina … Plaintiff-respondent
377
Avi Ram Mondal v. Shib Shekhar Mondal and others
Absolute in part
378
379
A. Rashid Mezi being dead his legal heirs: Maleka Bibi and others v. Golam Hossain Mezi being dead his legal heirs: Shorupa Khatun and others
Absolute
380
Kodbanu Bibi and others v. Hazi Md. Alauddin and others
Disposed of
381
Md.Anarul Islam Vs. The State
382
Md. Tazul Islam @Kajal Vs. The State
383
Md. Jamal Hossain Vs. The State
384
Md.Monu Miah Vs. The State
385
Khadiza Vs. The State
386
Md. Jamal Hossain Vs. The State
387
Md. Sanowar Hossain-vs-Md. Zia and others
Discharged
388
Md. Sayam Islam Babu Vs. The State
389
Molla Ismail Hossain being dead his Legal Heirs: Mosam: Tahera Banu and others v. Md. Faruq and others
The Rule is discharged
390
Md. Samsudduha Khokan -Versus- The State and another
391
Md. Wahed Ali -Versus- The State and another
392
Mahbub Ali and others Vs. The State
393
394
Siratunnesa Vs. The State
395
Md. Kamrul Islam Bharasha Vs. The State
396
397
Md. Afizar Rahman Vs. The State
398
Faizul Jahan Titu Vs. The State
399
Md. Eskandar Ali Moral, son of late Md. Danesh Moral and others.-Vs-Monjur Hossain Shikdar, son of Moslem Ali Shikdar, village- Madhab Kati, Police StationKachua, District- Bagerhat and others
400
Bikalpa Bahumukhi Samabaya Samity Limited represented by its Secretary. Vs. Md. Rafizuddin Bepari and others.
A suit for declaration of title and recovery of Khas possession on the allegation that the plaintiff was dispossessed or discontinued possession is governed by Article 142 of the Limitation Act. Accordingly, the plaintiff of such suit is to prove that the dispossession or discontinuance of possession took place within twelve years before filing of the suit. In order to grant a decree for recovery of possession the Court is required to find on which date the plaintiff was dispossessed from the suit land and whether the suit was filed within twelve years from the date of dispossession of the suit land. Accordingly, in such a suit the plaintiff is required to allege in the plaint that he or she was dispossessed within twelve years of the institution of the suit and if he or she fails to do so he has no cause of action to institute the suit.
This Site is Visited :