Act/Law wise: Judgment of Supreme Court of Bangladesh

ALL A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z



Registration Act, 1908
Section/Order/Article/Rule/Regulation Head Note
Sections 6 , 7 and 30

The Appellate Division held that section 6 of the Registration Act has provided for appointment of Registrars and Sub-Registrars by the government. Section 7 of this Registration Act has provided that the government shall establish in every district an office of the Registrar and in every sub-district an office or offices of the Sub-Registrar or of Joint Sub-Registrars and has further provided that the government may amalgamate with any office of a Registrar any office of a Sub-Registrar subordinate to such Registrar, and may authorize any Sub-Registrar whose office has been so amalgamated to exercise and perform, in addition to his own powers and duties, all or any of the powers and duties of the Registrar to whom he is subordinate. Section 30 of the Registration Act has provided that any Registrar may in his discretion receive and register any document which might be registered by any Sub-Registrar subordinate to him.
Md. Syed Ali Mirdha being dead his heirs -Vs.- Shamsuddin Saiyal and others (Civil) 12 ALR (AD) 109-112 ....View Full Judgment

Section 17

Document not creating any interest in the immovable property but accountability for the money realised by the party to the other is implied—does not require to be compulsorily registered.
The agreement embodied in the document has Transfer of the interest of a partner in a partner been expressly referred to as a special power of attorney under which on the basis of a mutual arrangement a building in Pakistan was made over to the plaintiff empowering him to realise rents and keep the rents realised or use the same personally and a similar building in India also was made over by the plaintiff to the executants of the document with similar terms. Held: No rights of ownership in the prop- city were transferred by the document to the plaintiff. It is also difficult to spell out of this agreement any exemption from accountability for the rents realised to the owner although it seems that, in consideration of the services to be rendered in recovering rents, the plaintiff was authorized to use the rent personally also. No express words were to indicate that the plaintiff would not be liable to account for everything that he had realised by way of rent to the owner.
In the circumstances it is clear that the document did not create any interest in immovable property and did not operate as an assignment of future rents. It was, therefore, not compulsorily registerable under section 17 of the Registration Act. Riazul Ambia vs. lbrahim (1961) 13 DLR (SC) 32. ....View Full Judgment

Section 17(1)(2), clauses (a) and (b)­

Compromise decree comprising property which were not subject-matter of the suit—requires to be registered. Janab Ali Sarder vs Taser Ali Fakir 37 DLR (AD) 35. ....View Full Judgment

Section 17(2)(VI)

If a compromise decree contains property which is not the subject—matter of the suit, such a document is to be registered —­where the compromise decree compromises property which are the subject—matter of the suit such a decree does not require registration. Janab Ali Sarder vs Taser Ali Fakir 37 DLR (AD) 35. ....View Full Judgment

Section 17(2)(VI)

If the compromise has been acted upon or is covered by decree then it is settled law that compromise is exempted from registration. Janab Ali Sarder vs Taser Ali Fakir 37 DLR (AD) 35. ....View Full Judgment

Section 17(i)(b)

Transfer of partners interest—Whether registered document necessary to transfer the interest of a partner in immovable property of a partnership—The interest of a partner in partnership assets in movable property though the assets includes immovable property?— The transfer of interest of a partner in partnership firm can be effected by registered document under the provisions of the Registration Act when the firm is possessed of immovable property as the transfer operates to create an interest in immovable property does not appear to be a sound law—Registration of such document for conveying share in partnership in immovable property is not required. Lin Ying Ping Vs. Leon Fang Ai, 5 BLD (AD) 24 ....View Full Judgment

Sections 17(2)(VI) and 50

Registration of compromise decree— Compromise decree when exempt from registration—If the compromise deals with suit properties then the decree on such compromise is exempt from registration but if the compromise relates to properties which are not subject-matter of the suit, in such case the decree is not exempt from registration— If the compromise has been acted upon or is covered by the decree then it is a settled law that compromise is exempt from registration. Jonab All Sardar and others Vs. Taser All Fakir and another, SBLD(AD)260 ....View Full Judgment

Section 17

Compromise decree passed in a suit is not required to be registered—
In respect of the subject-matter of a suit in which compromise decree is effected by the parties thereto such compromise decree need not be registered under the Registration Act, 1908. Jonah Ali Sardar and others Vs. Taser Ali Fakir and another. 5 BLD (AD) 260. ....View Full Judgment

Section 17

Compromise decree— When to be registered—
Compromise decree in respect of the subject-matter of the suit is not required to be registered. But the comprise decree relating to the transferring of property not involved in the suit will be required to be registered. Jonah Ali Sarder Vs. Taser AH Fakir. 37 DLR (AD) 35. ....View Full Judgment

Section 17B

Registration Act, 1908 (As Amend by Act 25 of 2004)
Section-17B read with Specific Relief Act, 1877 (As Amended by Act 27 of 2004); Section-21A
Agreement dated 02.01.2000 Shows that the consideration of Tk.2,34,00,000/- out of which Tk. 78,00,000/- was paid in advance with a further commitment to pay the rest of the amount by 31.12.07 -moot question is that whether court can direct to pay the balance amount before the expiry of 31.12.07
Held; It will not be out of place to mention that plaintiffpetitioner was required to deposit the balance amount in terms of agreement on or before 31.12.2007 but till now he has not deposited the same though he filed the suit for equitable relief in the form of the Specific Performance of Contract. However since both the trial court and the High Court Division are on the same view relating to deposit of the balance amount at the time of filing of the suit for Specific Performance of Contract under section 21 A of the Specific Relief Act we find no illegality or infirmity therein which deserves our interference. Ayurvedia Pharmacy (Dhaka) Ltd. Vs. Mohammad Ali & Ors 21 BLT(AD) 229. ....View Full Judgment

Section 17

A deed of dissolution of partnership is not required to be registered–
A deed of dissolution of partnership is not required to be registered under section 17 of the Registration Act because the share of a partner in a partnership is essentially moveable property notwithstanding that a part of the partnership property may be immovable. .....Dine Ara & others =VS= Bangladesh Rubber Industries & others, (Civil), 2016-[1 LM (AD) 91] ....View Full Judgment

Section 17

Invalid documents–
Every document mentioned in Section 17 of Registration Act has to be presented for registration in the office of a Sub-Registrar within whose sub-district, the whole or some portion ( before amendment) of the property to which such document relates is situated. Where a document is registered by including a property which is non- existent merely on conferring jurisdiction on the Sub- Registrar where it is registered, such a document is invalid. .....Nazera Bibi (Most.) =VS= Abdul Mazid, (Civil), 2018 (1) [4 LM (AD) 285] ....View Full Judgment

Section 17

Dissolution of partnership is not required to be registered–
We find that a deed of dissolution of partnership is not required to be registered under section 17 of the Registration Act because the share of a partner in a partnership is essentially moveable property notwithstanding that a part of the partnership property may be immovable. .....Bangladesh Rubber Industries =VS= Dine Ara Begum, (Civil), 2018 (2) [5 LM (AD) 200] ....View Full Judgment

Section 17A

The Registration Act, 1908
Section 17A read with
The Specific Relief Act, 1877
Section 21A read with
The Contract Act, 1872
In a contract for sale of immovable property, a time, to be effective from the date of registration, shall be mentioned for execution and registration of the instrument of sale and if no time is mentioned, six months shall be deemed to be the time.
17A. Registration of contract for sale etc:
(1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Act or any other law for the time being in force, a contract for sale of any immovable property shall be in writing, executed by the parties thereto and registered.
(2) A contract for sale referred-to in sub-section (1) shall be presented for registration within thirty days from the date of execution of the contract and the provisions regarding registration of instruments shall apply.
21A. Unregistered contract for sale not specifically enforceable—Notwithstanding any thing to the contrary contained in this Act or any other law for the time being in force, no contract for sale of any immovable property can be specifically enforced unless—
(a) the contract is in writing and registered under the Registration Act-1908, whether or not the transferee has taken possession of the property or any part thereof; and
(b) the balance amount of the consideration of the contract is deposited in the court at the time of filing the suit for specific performance of contract." .....Comprehensive Holdings Ltd. =VS= MH Khan Monju, (Civil), 2017 (2)– [3 LM (AD) 198] ....View Full Judgment

Sections 22 and 55 (3)

Appellate Court being the last Court of fact, comes to any finding based on the evidence on record, the power of the revisional Court to interference with such finding is limited–
Appellate Division held that when the lower appellate Court, being the last Court of fact, comes to any finding based on the evidence on record, the power of the revisional Court to interfere with such finding is limited to cases where the finding of the appellate Court is perverse, or based on wrong appreciation of the evidence. .....Haji Nayeb Ali =VS= Amir Hossain & others, (Civil), 2016-[1 LM (AD) 423] ....View Full Judgment

Section 28

If property included in a deed for registration is not in existence—registration not valid. Syed Kawsar Ali vs Gahar Kazi 37 DLR (AD) 177. ....View Full Judgment

Section 28

Registration of a document with fictitious property included—A man who is a party to fraud cannot take advantage of his own fraud. Syed Kawsar Ali vs Gahar Kazi 37 DLR (AD) 177. ....View Full Judgment

Section 28

Unwarranted inclusion of property in a deed for registration may fall under 3 heads:
(1) Fictitious property is included—­registration invalid;
(2) Property exists, but the grantor has no title to it; registration invalid;
(3) Property exists, but not proved to belong to the grantor, while the grantee in good faith believes it to be grantor's—Registration not invalid—Burden of proof in case where the deed is challenged.
Syed Kawsar Ali vs Gahar Kazi 37 DLR (AD) 177. ....View Full Judgment

Section 28

(After amendment adding subjects (2) to section 28).
No party to the deed entitled to question validity of its registration on the ground that the property did not exist—But that will not affect right of a 3rd party. Syed Kawsar Ali vs Gahar Kazi 37 DLR (AD) 177. ....View Full Judgment

Section 28

A document the registration of which secured by inclusion of a non-existent property, etc shall not affect right of one not a party to the document. Syed Kawsar Ali vs Gahar Kazi 37 DLR (AD) 177. ....View Full Judgment

Section 28

Validity of registration—Question of protection of third party’s title—The vendor and vendee of Ext. A are precluded from questioning the validity of registration on the ground that the property did not exist or was fictitious or insignificant or was not intended to be conveyed and the registration was invalid. Syed Kawsar Au Vs. Gahar Kazi and others, 5BLD (AD) 289 ....View Full Judgment

Section 28

Parties to the deed since registered can not challenge the validity of the registration—
When a deed duly executed by the vendor and registered at the instance of the vendee, neither party subsequently can challenge the validity of the registration of the deed nor they can allege the same to be fictitious or non-existent or invalid. Syed Kawsar Ali Vs. Gahar Kazi and others. 5 BLD (AD) 289. ....View Full Judgment

Section 28

Deed in question was registered before the amendment - the suit land is situated within the jurisdiction of different Sub-Registry Office
Admittedly, the lands said to have been transferred by the impugned deed fell within the jurisdiction of another Sub-Registry Office - High Court Division make the rule absolute on the ground "Section 28 of the Registration Act speaks that document which affects immovable property shall be presented for registration in the office of Sub-Registrar within whose Sub-District the whole or some portion of the property to which such document relates is situated. In the present case it is found that the land which was included in the impugned sale deed was not within the jurisdiction of Palong Sub-Registry Office. It is a settled principle that where no part of property to which document relates is situated within the jurisdiction of a Sub-Registrar, the Sub-Registry has no jurisdiction to registrar the document, and registration if executed will be fraud. In a case of fraud, the question of limitation will run from the date of knowledge and not from the date of execution of the disputed document. In the present case it appears that the plaintiff filed the suit within the statutory period of limitation, which in the present case will run from the date of knowledge and not from the date of execution of the deed in question." -Held; The reasons assigned by the learned Single Judge are inconsonance with law and I find no illegality in the judgment of the High Court Division in interfering with the judgment of the Court of appeal below. Joynal Abedin Vs. Ali Azam Saial & Ors 21 BLT (AD) 337. ....View Full Judgment

Section 28(2)(a)

Unless there is evidence that the heirs were in collusion with the donor in the fraud committed upon the statute, they would not be precluded from challenging the validity of the deed in question.
The Appellate Division held that in the instant case the plaintiffs are not party to the deed in question and were totally unconnected at the time of the deed. Indeed, when it was created they were not the heirs of the donor. At the time of execution and registration of the deed the donor had a surviving wife and brothers who would have been his heirs. The plaintiffs were not even in contemplation of inheriting the property if the gift had not been made or the transaction had been invalidated at that time. They knew nothing of the heba-bil-ewaz. In hindsight it is seen that the fraudulent registration by inclusion of the fictitious land has affected the plaintiffs’ interest. In Appellate Division view the plaintiffs are third parties so far as the heba-bil-ewaz deed is concerned and their right to challenge the deed is not barred under section 28(2)(a) and has been protected by section 28(2)(b). In view of the above discussion, Appellate Division is of the opinion that unless there is evidence that the heirs were in collusion with the donor in the fraud committed upon the statute, they would not be precluded from challenging the validity of the deed in question.
Altab Hossain Sikder and others -Vs.- Abdul Malek Sikder and others (Civil) 9 ALR (AD) 107-113 ....View Full Judgment

Section 28(2)(b)

Any third party who had no notice of the transaction is not precluded from challenging the validity of a deed to which he is not party and which was fraudulently registered.
The Appellate Division held that the provision of law in fact reflects the common law principle that no man shall take advantage of his own wrong. Having illegally registered the deed, which at the time suited his purpose, the donor would not be permitted by law to renege from his liabilities under it by claiming that what he did was illegal or that the deed was invalid. In these circumstances the law cannot impinge upon the rights of any other person who did not play any part in the fraud. Moreover, the tenor of section 28(2)(b) is that any third party who had no notice of the transaction is not precluded from challenging the validity of a deed to which he is not party and which was fraudulently registered.
Altab Hossain Sikder and others -Vs.- Abdul Malek Sikder and others (Civil) 9 ALR (AD) 107-113 ....View Full Judgment

Sections 32 and 33

Power of attorney—its registration— Contention that a power of attorney empowering a person to execute a deed of transfer of immovable property requires registration is not tenable as a power of attorney executed in terms of Registration Act or under other provisions of law which confers a valid power on the attorney to act as an agent for the principal does not require registration except that its authentication under the law is necessary. Nurunnessa and others Vs. Babar Au Bepari and others, 1BLD (AD) 85 ....View Full Judgment

Sections 32 and 33

Power of Attorney—Power of attorney executed and authenticated by a Magistrate or Notary Public in a foreign country—Whether could be acted upon as a valid document in Bangladesh?
If a notarial act is done in a foreign country by a foreign notary and there is reciprocal arrangement between Bangladesh and that foreign country, then by reference to S. 14 of Notaries Ordinance and S. 33 of the Registration Act, those notarial acts will be valid and the power of attorney admissible in Bangladesh.
If there is no reciprocal arrangement the question is whether by reference to S. 14 of the Notaries Ordinance, 1961 it could be said that foreign notarial act will not be recognised as a valid act or document. A reading of S. 14 does not indicate any such prohibition or exclusion. Notarial act in a foreign country having no reciprocal arrangement can be accepted into evidence if there is evidence to show that the person before whom the notarial act was done was a Notary Public and that the state in which the notarial act was done authorised him by law to do the notarial acts. If a notarial act takes place in a foreign country, the person asking the Court to accept the notarial acts done in a foreign country can do so by showing that the law of that country authorised notarial acts to be done by Notaries as they are so done in Bangladesh and by proving the authentication made by the Notary Public.
A power of attorney authenticated by a Magistrate in India will be admissible if it is proved that the Magistrate by law and practice having the force of law in India is authorised to authenticate power of attorney and that it was duly authenticated by the Magistrate. Nurunnessa and others Vs. Babar Au Bepari and others, 1BLD (AD) 86 ....View Full Judgment

Section 33

Notarial act done in foreign country whether admissible in Bangladesh.
If there is reciprocal arrangement between Bangladesh and that foreign country, in that case a notarial act done in thai foreign country is admissible as valid in Bangladesh as provided in section 14 of the Notaries Ordinance, 1961 and section 33 of the Registration Act. Notarial act done in a foreign country with which there is no such reciprocal arrangement, can be accepted into evidence if it is shown that such act was done by a Notary Public duly authorised by law and on proof of the authentication thereof. A power of attorney authenticated by a Magistrate in India duly authorised by law is admissible in Bangladesh. Nurunnessa and others Vs. Babar Ali Bepari and others. 1 BLD (AD) 86. ....View Full Judgment

Section 47

Time runs from the date of execution and not from the date when it is copied and endorsed as registered—
Section 47 is a complete answer to the corner. that title passed at the time of registration. When unregistered deed is executed, a deed which registration, transfer of title remains in abbey till the deed is registered, but as soon as it is glared the transfer operates, in the words of scci 47, not from the date of the registration but the date on which it would, if no registration needed have taken effect. Ata Ullah vs. Custodian of Evacuee Property (1964) 16 DLR (SC) 299. ....View Full Judgment

Section 47

Dispute as to the precedence of one document over the other is to be determined in accordance with provisions of section 47 of Registration Act.
It is well settled that in the case of successive transfers of the self—same property in favour of different persons by a common vendor by registered documents, the dispute as to the precedence of one document over the other is to be determined in accordance with the principle laid down in section 47 of the Registration Act. Mir Abdul Ali vs Md Rafiqul Islam 40 DLR (AD) 75. ....View Full Judgment

Section 47

A document after registration relates back to the date of its execution for determining the question of title. It is clear that a document that has been registered relates back to the date of its execution and when the question of title as between the two contestants claiming on the basis of successive documents executed by the self—same vendor must be determined with reference to the title to the latter on the date of execution and not of registration. Mir Abdul Ali vs Md Rafiqul Islam 40 DLR (AD) 75. ....View Full Judgment

Section 47

Section 47 is designed to protect a vendee from the fraudulent operations of a vendor—This section applies when the same vendor successively transfers the same property to different purchasers at different times. Abdul Motalib vs Iman Ali 42 DLR (AD) 123. ....View Full Judgment

Section 47

Pre-emption—Cause of action —Cause of action for pre-emption accrues on the date of registration of a sale deed when registration is compulsory, because the right of pre-emption arises on completion of a transfer. If a pre-emption application is filed before registration of the sale deed, it is not to be dismissed on the ground of pre-maturity if the same is registered during the pendency of pre­emption proceeding. Ayesha Khatun vs Jahanara Begum 43 DLR (AD) 9. ....View Full Judgment

Section 47

The provision of this section is attracted only when the two competing documents are otherwise at par and stand on the same footing. Rafiqul Islam (Md) vs Mir Abdul Ali 44 DLR (AD) 176. ....View Full Judgment

Section 47

There can be no liberal or extended application of section 47. Such interpretation is fraught with grave consequences. Rafiqul Islam vs Mr. Abdul Ali 44 DLR (AD) 176. ....View Full Judgment

Section 47

Sale deed executed earlier but registered later in point of time will prevail over sale—deed executed later but registered earlier. The criterion in such cases for the purpose of determining when the sale takes effect is not the date of registration but the date of execution of the deed itself. Rafiqul Islam vs Mir Abdul Ali 44 DLR (AD) 176. ....View Full Judgment

Sections 47 and 60

Long line of decisions of the erstwhile Dhaka High Court has followed the principle that the date of accrual of the right of pre-emption is not the date of execution of the sale deed but the date of registration under section 60 of the Registration Act. Abdul Motalib vs Iman Ali 42 DLR (AD) 123. ....View Full Judgment

Sections 47 and 60

Documents of successive transfers— Dispute as to precedence of one document over the other—Whether the document registered earlier in point of time will prevail over the other ?—A document that has been registered relates back to the date of its execution and the question of title as between the two contestants claiming on the basis of successive documents executed by the selfsame vendor must be determined with reference to the title to the latter on the date of execution and not of registration.Mir Abdul Ali Vs. Md. Rafiqul Islam, 8BLD (AD) 73 and 149 ....View Full Judgment

Section 47

Fraudulent operations of vendor—Section 47 of the Registration Act is designed to protect a vendee from the fraudulent operations of a vendor—This section applies when the same vendor successively transfers the same property to different purchasers at different times, Abdul Motalib Vs. Imam Ali Mollah, 10BLD (AD) 160: 42DLR (AD) 123 ....View Full Judgment

Section 47

Which document prevails—When the same vendor executes and registers two sale deeds in respect of the same land in favour of two different purchasers on two different dates section 47 of the Act settles which one will prevail over the other. The sale-deed which was executed earlier but registered later in point of time will prevail over the other. The sale deed which was executed earlier but registered later in point of time and the criterion in such cases for the purpose of determining when the sale takes effect is not the date of registration hut the date of execution of the sale deed itself. Md. Raiqu1 Islam Vs. Mir Abdul All, l2BLD (AD) 77 ....View Full Judgment

Section 47 and 60

Date of accrual of right of pre­emption—
The well settled principle of law on this point is that the date of accrual of right of pre-emption is not the date of execution of the sale deed but the date of registration under section 60 of the Registration Act. Abdul Motalib Vs.Oman Ali Mollah and others. 10 BLD (AD) 160, 42 DLR (AD) 123. ....View Full Judgment

Section 47

Documents executed and registered on different dates— Order of precedence—
When the same vendor executes and registers two sale deeds in respect of the same land in favour of two different purchasers on two different dates, section 47 of the Registration Act, 1908 settles which one will prevail over the other. The sale deed which was executed earlier but registered later in point of time will prevail over the other. The sale deed which w^s executed earlier but registered later in point of time and the criterion in such cases for the purpose of determining when the sale takes effect is not the date of registration but the date of execution of the sale deed itself. Md. Rajlqul Islam Vs. Mir Abdul Ali 12 BLD (AD) 177. ....View Full Judgment

Section 47

The deed of defendant No. 1 would prevail over the deed of the plaintiff and that defendant No. 1 got title in schedule 1(ka) land and that the plaintiff did not acquire any title in schedule 1(ka) land by exhibit-8 as the two deeds of defendant No. 1 were of earlier date.
The Appellate Division observed that the High Court Division came to a finding that defendant No. 1 purchased the land of 1(ka) schedule to the plaint from defendant No. 1 by a registered deeds dated 02.03.1970 (exhibit-b) and dated 21.05.1976 (exhibit-c) without the know-ledge of the agreement of the plaintiff. The High Court Division further found that defendant No. 2 having admitted the sales by exhibits-Tha and Dha and having not con-tested the suit, it could be said defendant No. 2 admitted the claim of defendant No. 1 and as such, the plaintiff could not get any benefit of any mistake in the deed dated 21.08.1976 (exhibit-c) of defendant No. 1. The High Court Division concurred with the finding of the trial Court that the plaintiff’s deed would be effected from 15.07.1996 and not from the date of the bainapatra in 1973 and that under section 47 of the Registration Act, the deed of defendant No. 1 would prevail over the deed of the plaintiff and that defendant No. 1 got title in schedule 1(ka) land and that the plaintiff did not acquire any title in schedule 1(ka) land by exhibit-8 as the two deeds of defendant No. 1 were of earlier date. The High Court Division, however, concluded that the plaintiff was entitled to get a preliminary decree for his share in the 1st schedule land except the land of schedule 1(ka) which is covered by exhibits-Tha and Dha.
Bibi Joynab Begum Chowdhury and others.-Vs.- Osi Mia Osi Mia Sawdagar being dead his heirs (Civil) 12 ALR (AD) 12-15 ....View Full Judgment

Section 47

There is no doubt that a document which requires registration so long it is not registered is not valid yet once it is registered it takes effect from the date of its execution. The object of this section 47 is to decide which of two or more registered instruments in respect of the same property is to have effect. A sale which is not complete until the registration of the document is complete, cannot be said to have been completed earlier because by virtue of section 47 of the Registration Act the instrument by which it is effected, after it has been registered, commences to operate from the date of its execution. …Alimuzzaman (Reza)(Md.) =VS= Masudar Rahman(Md.) @ Babul, (Civil), 2020 (1) [8 LM (AD) 164] ....View Full Judgment

Section 60

Right of pre-emption accrues on the date of registration—Stare decisis—An established precedent handed down by past Judges. Abdul Motalib vs Iman Ali 42 DLR (AD) 123. ....View Full Judgment

Section 60

Presumption of law that the registration proceedings were regular and honestly carried out—If the question is whether the deed of gift is genuine or not the simple answer is, it being a registered document under section 60 of the Registration Act a strong presumption is attached to it as the Privy Council stated in 33 IA 60 "what remains to be shown is that the persons admitting execution before the Registrar was this Purshotam Das and no imposter. The question is one of fact except insofar as there was as matter of law a presumption that the registration proceedings were regular and honestly carried out. Abani Mohan Saha vs Assistant Custodian 39 DLR (AD) 223. ....View Full Judgment

Section 60

The registration is itself some evidence of execution.
"Any objection to the sufficiency of the proof upon this point would have been idle, the circumstances being such that the evidence of due registration is itself some evidence of execution as against the plaintiffs." Abani Mohan Saha vs Assistant Custodian 39 DLR (AD) 223. ....View Full Judgment

Section 60

Kabuliyat—The defendants having executed their kabuliyats in favour of the plaintiff are estopped from denying his title—The deed of gift was registered in 1969. These bharatias defendants 3 to 5 executed their kabuliyats in 1970 in favour of the plaintiff, and they are estopped from denying the title of the plaintiff. This circumstance is enough to prove the title of the plaintiff. Abani Mohan Saha vs Assistant Custodian 39 DLR (AD) 223. ....View Full Judgment

Section 60

All things done before the registration officer will be presumed to be duly done.
"The Registration is a solemn act, to be performed in the presence of the competent official appointed to act as registrar, whose duty is to attend the parties during the registration and see that the proper persons are present and are competent to act and are identified to his satisfaction; and all things done before him in his official capacity and verified by his signature will be presumed to be done duly and in order." Abani Mohan Saha vs Assistant Custodian 39 DLR (AD) 223. ....View Full Judgment

Section 60

The Registration Officer is not a Court and has no judicial function—He is doing only a departmental duty.
"A person relying on a document is bound to prove its execution. The fact that it is registered makes no difference. It is true that no document is registered unless the Registrar is satisfied on such enquiry as the Registration Act authorises that it was executed by the alleged executant. But he is not a Court and has no judicial function. The object of his enquiry is to enable him to do his departmental duty and the opinion formed in such an enquiry, though good for his departmental purpose, has no value in judicial enquiry as evidence of its execution." Abani Mohan Saha vs Assistant Custodian 39 DLR (AD) 223. ....View Full Judgment

Section 60(2)

When the original will was produced and an attesting witness was also examined presumption under section 60(2) was not an inssue. [Discussing 30 IA 60].
In that case no witness came forward to say that the signature of the testator in the will or in the register book was not in his handwriting. As the original will was produced and an attesting witness was also examined the question of presumption under section 60(2) of the Registration Act was not directly an issue. The above observation was made with reference to another contention in that case, that the testator had not a disposing state of mind, and in that connection an emphasis was laid on the solemn act of registration. Abani Mohan Saha vs Assistant Custodian 39 DLR (AD) 223. ....View Full Judgment

Sections 60(2) and 67

Execution may be considered as proved under section 60(2) where there is other evidence to corroborate the admission—but such evidence cannot be evidence of execution against third parties—When a document is necessary to be proved as executed under section 67 and when witnesses are available, courts may not take recourse to any presumption under section 60(2). Such presumption is always rebuttable.
It follows from what has been noted above that where there is other evidence to corroborate the admission, incorporated in the certificate of the Registrar under section 60(2) of the Registration Act, the execution of the document may be considered as proved.
Certificate for the registration raises a presumption as to the admission of execution by the executant, but such admission cannot be evidence of due execution against third parties. The execution of a document is to be proved in a manner as provided in section 67 of the Evidence Act and when witnesses are available to prove a questioned document the court may not take recourse to any presumption under 60(2) of the Registration Act, as the Registrar's endorsement under that section cannot be treated as a conclusive proof of execution; but in an appropriate case, a presumption may be raised when evidence to prove execution in the manner provided in section 67 of the Evidence Act is not available due to the executant or the material witnesses being dead or for some other good reason. In any case, such a presumption is always a rebuttable presumption. Abani Mohan Saha vs Assistant Custodian 39 DLR (AD) 223. ....View Full Judgment

Section 60

Right of pre-emption accrues on the date of registration—Stare decisis—An established precedent handed by past Judges. Abdul Motalib Vs. Imam Ali Mollah and others, 10BLD (AD) 160: 42 DLR (AD) 123 ....View Full Judgment

Section 60

The consistent view of the apex courts of this Sub-Continent is that not only a gift under Mohammadan Law but also under the Transfer of Property Act, a gift must be coupled with acceptance and delivery of possession of the property. Mere registration of such deed of gift is not at all sufficient, something more has to be done for making a valid gift which is lacking in the present case. Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Housing and Public Works & another vs Shirely Anny Ansari 6 BLC (AD) 85 . ....View Full Judgment

Section 60

Whatever transaction took place between the pre-emptees and their vendor was a product of collusion and the transaction is tainted with fraud and the said transaction was made collusively and fraudulently by the pre-emptee and the original vendor only to defeat the claim of the pre-emptor. The reconveyance transaction being tainted with fraud and collusion the same can in no way deprive the pre-emptor of his claim of pre-emption and in a case like the present one if the pre­emption is rejected that would amount to giving premium to the fraudulent and collusive transaction between the original owner and the pre-emptees. The law is settled now that the right of pre-emption accrues on the registration of the kabala sought to be pre-empted. Ambiya Khatun and others vs Noor Ahmed and others 9 BLC (AD) 114. ....View Full Judgment

Section 69

Under section 69 of the Act the Inspector General shall exercise a general superintendence over all the registration offices in Bangladesh and shall have power from time to time to make Rules consistent with the Act. Government of Bangladesh and ors., Vs Mohammad Faruque, 18 BLD (AD) 276. ....View Full Judgment

Section 77

In a suit under section 77 of the Registration Act the court is only concerned with the question whether the document has been validly executed: Question about receipt of consideration money or that it is forged is beyond the scope of suit under section 77. Md Moshahaq Ali Mia vs Rabeya Khatun 37 DLR (AD) 190. ....View Full Judgment

Section 77

Registration of deed—Arbitrary and illegal refusal to register the deed presented with in the time—Registration authority wrongly refusing to register the deed the appellant should not be penalised for delay caused when there was no default on the art of the appellant.
A deed executed on 20.12.1971 was presented for registration on 27.3.1972. District Registrar refused registration without assignh’ g any reason. Appellant filed O.C. Suit No. 101 of 1972 under section 77 of the Registration Act and got decree on 31.12. 1973. The deed with copy of decree was presented for registration on 29.1.1974. Deed reciuired with endorsement that an affidavit was required. Appellant submitted application for permission but the prayer for registration was refused.
Court directed presentation of the deed for registration within 30 days from the order. Md. Sajjad Au Vs. inspector General, Registration and others. 3BLD (AD)58 ....View Full Judgment

Section 77

Suit for registration of document— Scope of the suit against refusal of registration by the Registrar—It is well settled that in such a suit the Court is only concerned whether the document is executed by the person by whom it is alleged to have been executed and not its validity—The question of its validity must be determined in a suit properly framed for that purpose—The Court will not go to deal with the question that the deed is void for want of consideration or that it was obtained by fraud. Md. Moshahaq Au and others Vs. Rabeya Khatuii and another, 6BLD (AD) 178 ....View Full Judgment

When the plaintiff’s witnesses admitted possession of the defendant a suit for declaration of title simpliciter is not maintainable–
The Appellate Division held that unless the original Volume containing the full text of the deed is produced, the certified copy being secondary evidence, the presumption of genuineness only goes to the extent of the genuineness of the certified copy, but not to the genuineness of the original document. Moreover, the Appellate Division finds from the evidence of C.W.1 that the certified copy did not contain the seal of the Registrar’s Office nor did it bear the genuine signature of A. Rashid, who was the then Sub-Registrar and as such the presumption of the genuineness of the 30 years old deed only goes to the extent of the genuineness of the certified copy, but not to the genuineness of the original document. .....Haji Nayeb Ali =VS= Amir Hossain & others, (Civil), 2016-[1 LM (AD) 423] ....View Full Judgment