Case Number Parties Short Description
Selim @ Md. Selim Miah and others. ...Appellants. -Versus- Bangladesh House Building Finance Corporation and others. ....Respondents.
Momtaz Begum ...Petitioner. -Versus- Fatema Begum and others. ....Opposite parties.
Mohammad Kamal Pasha ...Petitioner. -Versus- Three Star Properties Limited and others . ....Opposite parties.
Anowara Begum and another. ...Petitioners. -Versus- 1(ka) Dr. Md. Nizam Uddin Faruque and others. ...Opposite parties.
Md. Monir Ahmmed ...Appellant. -Versus- Anowar Hosain Khan. ....Respondent
Md. Julhas Uddin Jibon Vs. Md. Ayub Khan and others
Accordingly, the learned Registrar General of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh is directed to circulate through a General Notification among the learned Judges of the sub-ordinate courts that “the Sub-ordinate Civil Courts having original jurisdiction should strictly follow the provisions of section 21A(b) of the Specific Relief Act and the law declared by the hon’ble Appellate Division in Abul Kalam (Md) vs. Md Mohi Uddin and others, 69 DLR (AD) 239 and if the plaintiff fails to deposit balance consideration at the time of filing of a suit for specific performance of the contract, the Court must refuse to register the suit and return the plaint to the plaintiff”.
Serajul Islam and others ...Petitioners. -Versus- Md. Sujan Bhuiyan and others ....Opposite parties.
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.
Md. Mominul Hoque Shah ...Petitioner. -Versus- Md. Fazlul Haque Shah Chowdhury ....Opposite party.
Md. Showkat Ali ...Appellant. -Versus- Bangladesh Housing Building Finance Corporation and another
Md. Muhammad Moniruzzaman Khan and others. ...Appellants. -Versus- Mosammat Saleha Begum and others. ....Respondents.
Masrur Hasan Khan (Orin) and another Vs. Belal Hossain and others
Sofiur Rahman Vs. Equity Property Management (Pvt.) Limited Represented by the Managing Director and others
Sub-section (12) of section 12 of the Arbitration Act stipulates that the decision of the learned District Judge under sub-sections (3), (4) and (7) of section 12 of the Act, 2001 shall be final. Since the decision of the learned District Judge in respect of appointment of Arbitrator(s) under section 12 is final in view of the provision under sub-section (12) of the Arbitration Act, 2001 no revision under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is maintainable before this Court against such decision of the learned District Judge. Accordingly, this civil revision is not maintainable.
Fauji Chatkal Limited, represented by its Managing Director, Adamjee Court (2nd Floor), 115-120 Motijheel C/A, Dhaka. Vs Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary Ministry of Education, Bangladesh Secretariat, Ramna, Dhaka and others.
The consistent view of apex courts of this sub-continent is that not only a gift under Muhammadan Law but also under Transfer of property Act, a gift must be coupled with acceptance and delivery of possession. Where a donee of property is in bona fide possession of it, though the gift had not been perfected by a registered instrument in accordance with law, the donor or its representative cannot oust the donee who had been in undisturbed possession of the property for a long period though such period falls short of 12 years.
Pubali Bank Limited Vs. Mrs. Ferdousi Begum and others
Mst. Kamrun Nessa and others Vs. Most. Meher Nigar and others.
Abu Hena Mustafa Kamal Vs. Md. Shakil and others
Engineer M. Nasrul Hoq (Nusrum) Vs. Eac Industrial Ingredients (Bangladesh) Limited and others
Executive Engineer, Roads and Highways Department, Roads Division, Sylhet. ...Appellant. -Versus- Faruque Chowdhury @ Zahanur Reza Chowdhury. ...Respondent.
Jesmn Hosain and others Vs. Ayatun Nessa and others.
The Indian Supreme Court upon considering its earlier decisions of the cases of Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani vs. Indusind Bank Limited 2005 (2) SCC 217; Shambhu Shastri vs. State of Rajasthan, 1989 2 WLN 713(Raj); Ram Prasad v. Hari Narain AIR 1998 (Raj) 185 and Shankar Finance
Taj Mohammad and others ...Petitioners. -Versus- Alta Miah and others ....Opposite parties.
Md. Selamat Ullah Miji ...Petitioner. -Versus- Most. Solema Begum and others ....Opposite parties
Halima Jahan and others. ...Petitioners. -Versus- Md. Salim Bhuiyan being dead his heirs. Most. Kawsar Begum and others ....Opposite parties
ShafiqurRahman Chowdhury ...Petitioner. -Versus- Liakat Ali Chowdhury .
Shawon Chowdhury alias Shangkor Prasad Sarker and others ...Petitioners. -Versus- Faridul Alam and another.
Md. Nazrul Islam and others. ...Petitioners. -Versus- Amorendra Narayan and others. ....Opposite parties.
Zayeda Begum . ...Appellant. -Versus- Md. Rafiqul Islam @ Fenu and others ....Respondents.
Md. Humayun Kabir and others ...Petitioners. -Versus- Deputy Commissioner, Dhaka and others . ....Opposite parties.
Md. Fazle Ali and another Vs. Mosammat Chondona Begum and others
Government of the Peoples’ Republic of Bangladesh Vs. Capital Assets Production Ltd. and others
Mohammad Mahmudur Rahman Khan ...Petitioner. -Versus- Sonali Bank Limited . ....Opposite party.
Tonay Molla and others vs. Uttara Bank Limited and others
Md. Hazrot Ali and others . ...Appellants. -Versus- Mst. Khudu Khatun and others . ....Respondents.
Sarder Shafiqul Islam Vs. Mahbubur Rahman and others.
As per section 60 of the Transfer of Property Act the right of redemption is available to the mortgagor after the principal loan amount has become due and paid. Section 60A of the Transfer of Property Act allows the mortgagor to require the mortgagee to assign the mortgage debt and transfer mortgagor’s property to such third party as the mortgagor may direct and the mortgagee shall be bound to obey such direction of the mortgagor.

It is settled principle of law that when there is no right, there is no remedy. For the maintainability of a declaratory suit under section 42 of the Specific Relief Act the plaintiff must have a legal character or any right as to the property in suit. A person cannot sue for a declaration of his right unless he has an existing right. In the instant case, the mortgagors neither took permission from HBFC before the transfer was made to the plaintiffs nor repaid the loan amount before the transfer. As such, in view of the relevant provisions of Transfer of Property Act, as discussed above, as well the decision the hon’ble Appellate Division in Syed Jubayer Hossain (supra) the transaction was a fraudulent one and by dint of such transfer plaintiffs could not acquire right, title or interest in the suit property. Accordingly, their suit for declaration that the execution proceeding against their vendor- mortgagors was illegal, in effective and not binding upon them is not maintainable under section 42 of the Specific Relief Act.

The case of Sekandar, 3 LM (AD) 448 (supra) is quite distinguishable considering the facts and circumstances of the instant case because in the said case the third-party-claimants claimed their independent title to and possession in the suit property from the persons other than the mortgagors. In the instant case the plaintiffs are claiming their title to and possession in the suit property through the mortgagors. As such, the plaintiffs cannot be considered as third-party-claimants and accordingly, they have no remedy under rule 103 of Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the auction process because of the fact that the plaintiffs have stepped into the shoes of the mortgagors/ judgment debtors.
Rashid Ahmed and others. ...Appellants. -Versus- Messers Three Star Properties Limited and another. ...Respondents.
Md. Alamgir Hossain. ...Appellant. -Versus- Md. Mansur Ali and others ....Respondents.
Mohiuddin Ahammad Bhuiyan ...Petitioner. -Versus- Badrun Nahar. ....Opposite party.
Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology (BUET), represented by its Vice Chancellor, Dhaka. ...Petitioner. -Versus- Amena Begum and others ...Opposite parties.
Md. Jalaluddin Sheikh ...Petitioner. -Versus- Md. Abdul Jabbar ....Opposite party.
M/S Central Insurance Company Limited. ...Appellant. -Versus- Madina Refineries (Salt) Limited and another. ....Respondents.
Sonali Bank Limited. ...Petitioner. -Versus- M/S Asha Textile International and others. ....Opposite parties.
Md. Fazle Rabbi alias Babu. ...Petitioner. -Versus- Selina Begum and others. ....Opposite parties.
Bir Muktijudda Abdul Hamid and another ...Appellants. -Versus- Secretary, Ministry of Homes, Bangladesh Secretariat, Dhaka, ....Respondents.
Md. Nazrul Islam (Dulal) ...Petitioner -Versus- Aklima Akther and others . ....Opposite parties.
Md. Sanu Miah being dead his legal heirs 1(Ka) Nurun Nessa Khatun and others. ...Petitioners -VersusRashidpur Tea Easte and others ....Opposite parties
Shara Khan vs. Dr. Mandy Karim and another
In other words, section 36 of the Real Estate Development and Management Act, 2010 as a whole provided provisions to resolve specific dispute(s) among the purchaser, developer, or the landowner during implementation of a real estate project through amicable settlement or by constituting joint arbitral tribunal amicably and if they fail to constitute such joint arbitral tribunal, any party to the contract may file case before any appropriate Court constituted under Real Estate Development and Management Act, 2010. In that view of the matter there is no scope to initiate any second arbitration proceeding before the Arbitration Court by any party to the contract under section 36 of the Real Estate Development and Management Act, 2010 read with section 12 of the Arbitration Act, 2001.
Abdul Jabbar and another vs. Md. Abdul Aziz Khan and others.
Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act enables the person dispossessed to recover possession without establishing title to the land dispossessed. “Nothing in this section shall bar any person from suing to establish his title” employed in section 9 makes it clear that a person entitled to sue under this section is not bound to do so, but he can always go for a regular suit founded on title, either in addition to or instead of a suit under this section.
Khaleda Begum and others Vs. Tanjia Islam Smrity
A service benefit or pension that had not fallen due to a deceased employee in his lifetime or is a kind of grant, donation, bounty, concession and/or compensation by the employer, the amount thereof payable after the death of the employee shall be distributed only to those members of his family who are entitled for the same as per the prevailing rules and regulations of service or under the relevant and applicable provision(s) of law and the law of succession will not applicable.
Md. Kashem Sharif @ Abul Kashem Sharif and others Vs. Md. Abul Hossain and others
Sub-rule (3) of rule (2) of Order II of the Code of Civil Procedure gives the plaintiff an opportunity to claim more than one relief after institution of the suit with leave of the Court. Rule (12) of Order xx of the Code empowers the Court to pass a decree of recovery of possession of property with relief of mesne profits or rent. Such claim of rent or mesne profits, if omitted, at the time of institution of the suit, the plaintiff as per sub-rule 2(3) of Order II of the Code may introduce such claim after institution of the suit with the leave of the Court.

In Abdul Karim Meah vs Arch Bishop Christian Missionaries and another 36 DLR (AD) 38 it has been held, “ for realisation of the omitted claim, the plaintiff will be debarred from filing a subsequent suit, but there is no prohibition to the realisation of the omitted claim in the suit by amending the claim.
Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, represented by the Deputy Commissioner, Jashore and others. vs Md. Abdul Karim and others
In the above cited cases the Appellate Division stated as to how delay causes by the Government functionaries in preferring a revisions before the higher Courts due to some official formalities as well as dilatory tactics or negligent activities on the part of the Government officials. If the revisional applications brought by the Government are lost for such default, no person would be individually affected but public interest would be affected. Accordingly, the Apex Court took a lenient view in condoning the delay in filing revisional application by the Government.