Act/Law wise: Judgment of Supreme Court of Bangladesh


Bengal Tenancy Act, 1885
Section/Order/Article/Rule/Regulation Head Note
Section 3(17)

Bargader or Adhiar—When acquires the status of a tenant—He acquires the status of a tenant if he is admitted as a tenant by the landlord in any document executed by him or if he has been held by a civil Court to be a tenant.
Shafiullah and others Vs. Sultan Ahmad Mir being dead his heirs; 6 BLD (AD) 70. ....View Full Judgment

Sections 5(1), 52, 61, 86A and 195(e)

Applicability of the provision of Bengal Tenancy Act in respect of Patni tenures-A talukdar holds a tenure under a Zamindar, a Darpatnidar under a talukdar and so on. The same goes for a howladar and a Nim howladar and so on. The provision of Bengal Tenancy Act relating to tenures are, prima facie, applicable to Patni Laws. Bengal Tenancy Act cannot vary the relative rights of Zamindars and Patni talukdars as established by Regulation VIII of 1819 but if there are provisions in the Bengal Tenancy Act which are in the nature of supplementing the relationship without being in conflict with the Patni Laws, the provisions of Bengal Tenancy Act will apply in respect of Patni tenures.
Bangladesh vs Tobarak Ali Mia 43 DLR( AD) 130. ....View Full Judgment

Section 22

Occupancy right of tenancy when merged with superior interest—A person holding occupancy right in a land does not lose it by subsequently becoming jointly interested in the land as proprietor or permanent tenure holder
Shafiullah and others Vs. Sultan Ahmad Mir being his deal heirs; 6 BLD (AD) 70. ....View Full Judgment


Merger—Whether occupancy raiyati holding merged with the tenure by purchase of the same by the co-sharer under-tenure holder—On account of purchase by co-sharer under-tenure-holder the raiyati holding did not lose its character of an occupancy raiyati holding—Subsequent purchasers acquired the same interest and not an under-tenure holding.
Mst. Noorjan Nessa Bewa and others Vs. Md. Mohsin Ali Talukder and others; 3 BLD (AD) 209. ....View Full Judgment

Section 26(G) and clause (1a)

The sale with a condition of re-conveyance being subsisting after commencement of Bengal Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1940 became complete usufructuary mortgage after expiry of 15 years from the date of execution of that instrument (i.e. the Kot-kabala).
The Appellate Division observed that it was argued that the transaction in question became complete sale on 18.06.1950 since the executant of that Kot-kabala did not fulfill the condition, this argument is not at all entertainable in view of the above quoted provisions of law. Long before 18.06.1950 the above quoted provision of law came into operation and as a result the said transaction in question (Kot-kabala) stood as a complete usufructuary mortgage with the expiry of 15 years by operation of law. .....Khanje Ali Sikder =VS= Hazi Mozaharuddin & others, (Civil), 2016-[1 LM (AD) 51] ....View Full Judgment

Section 26F

Pre-emption under section 26F of the Bengal Tenancy Act (VIII of 1885)­ - Whether the same can be allowed in favour of the pre-emptor applicant who admittedly owns more than 100 bighas of land exceeding the land ceiling prescribed in PO No. 98 of 1972-The question of land holding limitation upto 100 bighas of land does not arise as the Munsifs order was passed in 1967 when there was no law limiting land holding to 100 bighas. Appeal dismissed.
Azizur Rahman vs Bhayetullah 40 DLR (AD) 224. ....View Full Judgment

Section 26C

Oral gift by a Muslim—Whether such gift of agricultural land without a registered instrument valid—Completion of oral gift—It takes place as soon as .a declaration of gift by the donor and acceptance of the same by the donee are made and delivery of possession follows—This completion cannot be destroyed by the requirement of a registered instrument under section 26C of the B.T. Act.
Jabed Ali Vs. Aba Sheikh, being dead his heirs Md. Naimuddin and others; 3 BLD (AD) 1. ....View Full Judgment

Section 86

Surrender of tenancy in favour of land lord - Nature of proof required—
Claim of surrender of tenancy by the C.S. recorded tenants in favour of the land lord and subsequent settlement thereof in favour of the defendants must be proved by documentary evidence or by certain circumstantial evidence of convincing nature.
Gola Bewa (Most.) & others Vs. Md. Abdw Rashid & others- 4, MLR (1999) (AD) 420. ....View Full Judgment

Section 87

Abandonment-The appellant shall have no case if he relies on the plaintiff's admission of the abandonment of the suit land in the last part of Poush, 1360 BS.
Afroz Rashid vs Fazlul Karim 40 DLR (AD) 79. ....View Full Judgment

Section 87

Landlord is entitled to treat the land in possession of the tenant as abandoned when the tenant ceased to pay rent thereof and which by service of notice under section 87 BT Act he can enter into land and take possession­. Tenant has a right of recovery of the land by filing Bengal Waqf Act-Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Dhaka (Managing Committee of the Recognised Non-Government Secondary Schools) Regulations-Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Jessore (Managing Committee of Recognised Non-Government Secondary School) Regulation a suit within 2 years from the date of the notice.
Malekha Khatun vs Md Abul Kashem 37 DLR (AD) 164. ....View Full Judgment

Section 103B(5)

Every entry in a record of right finally published shall be evidence of the matter referred to in such entry shall be presumed to be correct until it is proved by evidence to be incorrect.
The Appellate Division observed that it appears from the materials on record that the disputed land was recorded in the name of Bangladesh Railway. It is the positive case of the Railway that the Government acquired the said land for Railway and handed over possession of the same to the Railway. Accordingly, C.S. record of right was prepared in the name of Railway. From the C.S. khatian produced by the appellant it appears that the case land was recorded in khatian No. 16868 in the name of Eastern Bengol State Railway Division under Bharat Samrat. C.S. khatian has got presumptive value. According to section 103B(5) of the Bengal Tenancy Act every entry in a record of right finally published shall be evidence of the matter referred to in such entry shall be presumed to be correct until it is proved by evidence to be in-correct. The same has got a probative value. The Appellate Division does not find anything in the record, re¬lying on which, it can be said that such presumption has been rebutted.
Bangladesh Railway, Dhaka -Vs.- Most. Monowara Begum and others (Civil) 13 ALR (AD) 135-141 ....View Full Judgment

Section 103B

In the Instant case, the lower appellate court, after a detailed discussion of the evidence of the parties came to the conclusion that after the auction sale of the ralyat interest of Salimuddin in 1939 there had been a change in the status and possession of the parties. Therefore the presumption of right, title and possession on the basis of C.S. Khatian did not hold good any more. [Para-9]
Taleb Ali Pramanik & Ors. Vs. Serajul Haque Mondal & Ors. 7 BLT(AD)-28 ....View Full Judgment

Sections 161 and 167

B.T. Act—Encumbrance—Sub-lease created by an under-raiyat having no occupancy right is not an in cumbrance and need not be annulled, but sub-lease created by a raiyat having occupancy right is an encumbrance and requires to be annulled under section 167 of the Bengal Tenancy Act.
Sunil Kumar Biswas Vs. Mohammad Idris and others; 1BLD (AD) 367 ....View Full Judgment

Section 173 (4)

The Appellate Division observed that in the suit neither the plaintiff nor the defendant No.1 adduced any cogent evidence to show that they are the owners and they have right, title and interest over the suit property including R.S. plot No.712 measuring an area of 0.86. The High Court Division, however, considered the aspect of the law of evidence and held that neither the plaintiff nor the defendant No.1 could prove any right, title and interest in schedule-‘Ka’ in equal share in R.S. plot No.712. It is no body’s case that the plaintiff and the defendant No.1 have been possessing the land of RS plot No.712 measuring 0.86 decimals of land by way of adverse possession. Though the plaintiff claimed that prior to C.S. operation, Hari Charan Mistry and Somerta Tara were in possession of the suit land but during S.A. operation neither the plaintiff nor the defendant No.1 claiming the schedule-‘Ka’ took any step to correct the record. On the contrary the defendant has expressed his ignorance about the suit land on the face of assertion of the plaintiff that the defendant No.1 is entitled to get 50% of the suit land. Though the plaintiff alleged to have been possessing 1/2 of the suit plot but could not show any basis of his entitlement therein. Accordingly Appeal is dismissed.
Birendra Nath Mondal -Vs-Dhirendra Nath Mondal and others(Mohammad Fazlul Karim J) 6 ALR (AD) 2015 (2)178 ....View Full Judgment