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

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.

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.

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.

Specific Relief Act, 1877
Section 42 r/w
Transfer of Property Act, 1882
Section 129 r/w
Registration Act, 1908
Section 17 & 49
Declaration of title– The plaintiff filed copy of electricity bill, copy of holding tax receipt etc. from which it is seen that plaintiff, Shehida Begum, during the course of possessing the suit premises, has paid all those taxes and bills. The documentary evidence goes to show that the plaintiff is in peaceful possession of the suit land. The facts, circumstances as well as other materials on record as has been divulged in our discussion, led us to hold that the learned Judge of the Single Bench of High Court Division did not commit any wrong in reversing the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court who as being a final court of facts totally mis appreciated and misdirected in reversing the Judgment and decree of the trial court which is based on sound reasoning. The appeal is dismissed without any order as to costs. ...Ahammed Hosain =VS= Shahida Begum, (Civil), 2021(2) [11 LM (AD) 604] ....View Full Judgment

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.

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

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, 5BLD(AD)260

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.

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.

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.

Acquisition and Requisition of the Immovable of the Property Ordinance, 1982
Section 44 r/w
Transfer of Property Act, 1882
Section 107
Registration Act, 1908
Sections 17, 49
The plaintiffs could not succeed on the weakness of the defendants’ case–– The plaintiffs would not be entitled to any claim on the land solely based on an entry in the revenue record since the revenue record does not confer title to the property nor do they have any presumptive value on the title. ––Since the plaintiffs have failed to prove their settlement, they are not entitled to get any decree. The trial Court has committed a serious error of law in decreeing the suit and directing the Government to pay compensation to the plaintiffs. The High Court Division in First Appeal, without ascertaining whether the plaintiffs were entitled to get a decree or not, erroneously noted the order of abetment of appeal which has caused a total failure of justice. Both the Courts have misappreciated the evidence and ignored the weight of evidence on record. ––Appellate Division finds merit in the appeal. The appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is hereby set aside. The judgment and decree dated 15.06.2016 passed by the High Court Division is also set aside. .....Bhawal Raj Court of Wards Estate =VS= Nahar Haider Nannu, (Civil), 2022(2) [13 LM (AD) 506] ....View Full Judgment

Transfer of immovable property through nikahnama not registered under Registration Act, 1908 is void:
As per Clause 16 of the said nikahnama, it appears that the father of the husband has transferred the said .09 decimal land, as mentioned in the schedule-2 to the plaint, in favour of the plaintiff. However, the admitted position is that this nikahnama, though registered under the Muslim Marriage and Divorce (Registration) Act and Rules made thereunder, it has not been registered as per the provisions of Registration Act, 1908 and the transfer has not been made as per the provisions of Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Therefore, such transfer has become void in so far as the Registration Act, 1908 and the relevant provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 are concerned. …Sadrul Huq being dead his heirs & ors. Vs. Farhana Firdousi & anr, (Civil), 16 SCOB [2022] HCD 62 ....View Full Judgment

It is crystal clear from the reading of the plaint that as per sub-clause (ii) of Clause (a) of Section 17B of the Registration Act, the plaintiff –opposite parties nor present the contract for sale itself for registration within six months from the date of coming into force of that section i.e. 1st July, 2005 neither instituted a suit for specific performance of the contract within six months next after the expiry of the period mentioned in clause (a). So, after the expiry of the period mentioned in clause (b) of section 17B, the contract for sale (affidavit dated 03.04.1995) in question stand void. ...Rokeya Begum Bina & ors Vs. Habib Ahsan & ors, (Civil), 9 SCOB [2017] HCD 127 ....View Full Judgment

The Registration Act, 1908
Section 17B(1) r/w
The Specific Relief Act
Section 21A(b)
Effect of unregistered bainanama–– The evidence adduced by the plaintiff does not show that he had taken any step(s) for registration of the unregistered bainanama within a period of 6(six) months. In view of the provision of section 17B(1) of the Act of 1908, it is Appellate Division’s considered view that as the plaintiff failed to make registration of the bainanama within the period of 6(six) months from the date of commencement of the act and, that he failed to approach to the defendants within the said period to register the bainanama, this Division is of the view that the bainanama has become void in operation of the law. ––Upon scrutiny of the evidence this Division finds laches on the part of the plaintiff to perform his part of contract and willingness. On this score also, the plaintiff is not entitled to get a decree for specific performance of contract. .....Sree Porikshit Mondal =VS= Sree Paresh Chandra Biswas, (Civil), 2023(2) [15 LM (AD) 66] ....View Full Judgment

The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Order VII, Rule 11 r/w
Registration (Amendment) Act
Section 17A and
Specific Relief (Amendment) Act
Section 21A
The maintainability of the suit in view of the provisions of section 17A of the Registration (Amendment) Act and section 21A of the Specific Relief (Amendment) Act could not be decided in an application for rejection of plaint without taking evidence–– Appellate Division finds from the order of the trial Court as well as the plaint that the suit was filed with two prayers. Firstly, for a direction upon defendant No. 1 to execute a deed in respect of the land described in the schedule, failing which a direction that the property is liable to be registered; and secondly, seeking a direction that the registered heba-bil-awaz [14]No. 5168 dated 10.07.2006 is inoperative. The trial Court observed that the two claims of the plaintiff cannot be decided without taking evidence. ––The maintainability of the suit in view of the provisions of section 17A of the Registration (Amendment) Act and section 21A of the Specific Relief (Amendment) Act could not be decided in an application for rejection of plaint without taking evidence. This Division is of the view that the application under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code was rightly rejected and no illegality has been committed by the High Court Division in upholding the order of the trial Court. .....Saifuddin Ahmed =VS= Dr. Hosne Ara Begum @Golap, (Civil), 2023(1) [14 LM (AD) 183] ....View Full Judgment

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

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

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

The Registration Act, 1908
Section 17A r/w
The Specific Relief Act, 1877
Section 21A r/w
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

Bengal Tenancy Act
Section 103(B)
State Acquisition and Tenancy Act
Section 144A r/w
Code of Civil Procedure
Order 6 Rule 7 r/w
Registration Act
Section 17(2)(VI)
Declaration of title and confirmation of possession over the suit land— Every entry in the Khatians, as the case may be, shall be presumed to be correct until it is proved by evidence to be incorrect— Presumption of correctness the record— There is conflict between the CS and RS khatians the RS khatian will prevail over the former— Both the provisions as contemplated in Section 103(B) of the Bengal Tenancy Act (in respect of CS Khatian) and Section 144A of the State Acquisition and Tenancy Act (in respect of RS Khatian) are rebuttable, that is to say, every entry in the Khatians, as the case may be, shall be presumed to be correct until it is proved by evidence to be incorrect. .....Md. Abdul Hanif @ Abu Hanif =VS= Bhupen Nath, (Civil), 2024(1) [16 LM (AD) 617] ....View Full Judgment

The Transfer of Property Act, 1882
Section 53A, 54 r/w
The Registration Act
Sections 17 and 49 r/w
The Contract Act, 1872
Section 23
The documents clearly show that a substantial amount of money was received on the plea for selling the possession of the space for shop premises. The tenants have given the right of transfer of possession subject to payment of transfer fee. This sale of possession is hit by section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, sections 17 and 49 of the Registration Act, and section 23 of the Contract Act, but this does not mean that the tenants can be evicted treating them as ejectable tenant. They have acquired interests in the premises by reason of payment of money towards sale of possession and their interest is protected under section 53A. .....Banichitra Pratisthan Ltd. =VS= Bilkis Begum, [3 LM (AD) 46] ....View Full Judgment

In view of the aforesaid amendment vide Registration Act,1908 (Act No.XXV of 2004) there is hardly any scope left for anyone to raise a question of forgery of a registered document since the photographs of both the executants are pasted on every instrument and the parties shall sign and put their left impression across their photographs in the instrument. More so, it is no bodies case that the photographs available in the impugned instrument or Heba deed is not the photographs of Kazi Shahidul Islam the father of the plaintiff Nos.1-3 and 5. Under such circumstances the allegation of forgery of the document in question can safely be brushed aside. ...Begum Monowara Vs. Kazi Tanvir Shahid & others, (Civil), 3 SCOB [2015] HCD 1 ....View Full Judgment

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

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.

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.

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.

(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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

It appears that the whole proceeding in regards execution and registration of the deed in question and endorsement of the Sub-Registrar therein as provided under sections 31, 32, 34, 35, 52, 58, 59 and 60 of the Registration Act, as stated above, were done in accordance with those provisions of the Act and the document achieved strong presumptive evidence as to its due registration. Accordingly, burden was upon the plaintiffs to rebut such evidence by adducing strong evidence to prove that the deed in question was a product of forgery. But the plaintiffs failed to discharge the onus. ...Abul Kasem & anr Vs. Asfaque Ahmed & anr, (Civil), 17 SCOB [2023] HCD 93 ....View Full Judgment

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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. Raiqul Islam Vs. Mir Abdul All, 12 BLD (AD) 77

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.

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.

Registration Act, 1908
Section 47
Specific Relief Act, 1877
Section 42
Partition suit–– The sale deed which was executed earlier but registered later in point of time will prevail over the sale deed executed later–– Appellate Division is of the view that the plaintiff miserably failed to prove their title over the suit land as such they are not entitled to get a preliminary decree in the instant partition suit. Furthermore, the present suit is not maintainable in its present form without a prayer for recovery of khas possession as well as not impugning the Deed Nos.8567, 5078 dated 28.06.1967 and 15.09.1966 respectively. Beside this the plaintiff is also bound by the judgment and decree of Suit No.57 of 1967 passed by the learned Sub-Judge, 1st Court, Chittagong. As such the instant suit is liable to be dismissed. .....Dr. B.M. Fayzur Rahman =VS= Md. Abdul Mannan Chowdhury, (Civil), 2023(2) [15 LM (AD) 215] ....View Full Judgment

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

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

Registration Act
Section 52A
Transfer of Property Act
Section 53C
It is settled proposition that Record of Right alone does not confer title but it has got presumptive value in favour of the person in whose name Record is prepared but again the presumption can be rebutted by showing cogent evidence and proof. As such any person can take recourse of law ventilating his grievance. If somebody’s name is erroneously not inserted in the record, he can take recourse to the Court of law for appropriate declaration but his claim cannot be stifled taking aid of Section 52A of the Registration Act or 53C of the Transfer of Property Act. ...Kamal Miah & ors. Vs. Lakkatura Tea Co. Ltd & ors., (Civil), 11 SCOB [2019] HCD 109 ....View Full Judgment

Full relief without hearing all the parties is deprecated– Appellate Division may reiterate that time and again this Division has observed that the High Court Division should not at the time of issuing Rule grant full relief without hearing all the parties involved in the litigation. This blatant disregard by the High Court Division of the decisions of this Division is deprecated. ...Horihor Tea Estate Ltd. =VS= Sreemoti Monisha Chakroborti, (Civil), 2021(2) [11 LM (AD) 58] ....View Full Judgment

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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 .

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.

Registration Act, 1908
Section 60
State Acquisition and Tenancy Act, 1950
Section 96
Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1949
Section 24
If the right of pre-emption is waived by the conduct of the pre-emptors before and after purchase, the pre-emption case may be dismissed:
The conduct of the pre-emptors before and after purchase amply proved that the preemptor- petitioners waived their right of pre-emption and as such, the pre-emption case was rightly dismissed by the trial Court. The petitioners intentionally relinquished of their statutory right and thereby waived the right of pre-emption. The Appellate Court assigning cogent reason concurred with the finding of the trial Court; therefore, it does not warrant for any interference by this Court. It is true that the right of pre-emption accrues after the deed entered in the volume as per section 60 of the Registration Act, 1908, but if the right of pre-emption is waived before and after registration, obviously the Court may turn down the prayer of pre-emption; otherwise, the equitable principle of waiver, acquiescence which operate as estoppels will be meaningless. Nothing is absolute in law; therefore, it cannot be held absolutely that the pre-emption right shall accrue only after registration of the deed and if it so, the equitable principles of waiver and acquiescence shall be futile and fruitless. ...Most. Shamima Begum & anr Vs. Most. Rezuana Sultana & ors, (Civil), 18 SCOB [2023] HCD 284 ....View Full Judgment

State Acquisition and Tenancy Act, 1950
Section 96
Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1949
Section 24
Registration Act, 1908
Section 60
It is expected that the Government shall take necessary step to amend the provision of section 24 in line with the latest amendment of section 96 of the SAT Act, 1950 for the greater interest of the people of the country. The following points may be considered by legislators:
(i) Only the co-sharer tenant by inheritance can file pre-emption case under section 24 of the NAT Act.
(ii) Transfer by way of sale only be pre-emptible and the pre-emption case has to file within two months from the date of registration as per section 60 of the Registration Act or if no notice is given under section 23 of the NAT Act within two months from the date of knowledge.
(iii) The maximum period of filing pre-emption case shall not be more than two years from the date of expiry of the registration of the sale deed.
(iv) The pre-emptor has to deposit consideration money along with 35% of the compensation of consideration money and an amount of 10% annual interest upon the amount of consideration money for the period from the date of execution deed of sale and to the date of filing the application for pre-emption.
(v) The remaining co-sharer tenants by inheritance may join in the original application within two months from the date of service notice or within two months from the date of knowledge of registration of the deed.
(vi) If pre-emption case is allowed, the pre-emptee has to execute a registered sale deed within stipulated time failing which the Court shall execute the registered deed and shall hand over the possession to the pre-emptor.
(vii) Non-agricultural land or holding should be considered as synonym. If the non-agricultural land is recorded in different khatians by survey operation or by mutation proceeding, the right of pre-emption shall be ceased.
(viii) The ceiling of the agricultural or non-agricultural land should not be more than twenty bighas in case of agricultural land and only five bighas in case of non-agricultural land and accordingly, consequential amendment has to be made in Bangladesh Land Hodling (Limitation) Order, 1972(PO 98 of 1972), the Land Reforms Ordinance, 1984(Ordinance No. X of 1984) and Section 90 of the SAT Act (Act XXVIII of 1951).
(ix) As per Rules of Business and Allocation of Business, it is the subject of the Ministry of the Land, therefore, the Ministry of Land may take necessary step to review the provisions of law relating to pre-emption as set out under Section 24 of the NAT Act. ...Most. Shamima Begum & anr Vs. Most. Rezuana Sultana & ors, (Civil), 18 SCOB [2023] HCD 284 ....View Full Judgment

The Stamp Act, 1899
Sections 2(9), 27, 31, 32, 48 and 70
The Registration Act
Section 60
On 03.04.2001 the Sub-Registrar, Chandgaon filed a report/complaint before the District Collector and Deputy Commissioner, Chattogram alleging that the value of the transferred land was Tk. 9,89,255/- and, thereby, showing less value of Tk. 9,44,255 an amount of total Tk. 2,52,587.10 became due on account of various fees and taxes (stamp duty, registration fees, additional tax, Municipal tax, tax at source and vat). On the basis of the said complaint Undervaluation Case No. 31 of 2001 was initiated by the Collector, Chattogram and respondent No.3, concerned Assistant Commissioner, issued final notice upon the petitioner on 21.09.2011 for alleged violation of Section 27 of the Stamp Act and, thereby, directed the petitioner to pay Tk. 2,52,587.10 as total costs on account of stamp duty with additional taxes, registration fees, municipal tax, vat and penalty within 10 (ten) days from the date of receipt of the notice. ––The petitioner submits that the Sub-Registrar, respondent No. 4 herein, registered the sale deed in question after being satisfied with the consideration money shown in the sale deed and after perusing the affidavit wherein it has been clearly stated in clause-7 that the price of the land has not been shown less. The sale deed has been registered according to the law and the petitioner has received the sale deed and after registration and delivery of the sale deed respondent No.4 has no legal authority to initiate any case against the petitioner. The High Court Division without considering the above aspect passed the impugned judgment which is liable to be set aside.
Having examined and considered the above provisions of law coupled with the facts and circumstances of the case, Appellate Division have no hasitation to hold that, the Collector, Chattogram on the basis of a report of concerned Sub-Registrar with regard to the valuation of the property in question initiated the instant undervaluation case. ––The impugned proceeding against the petitioner has been initiated by the Collector and Deputy Commissioner, Chattogram within its jurisdiction, i.e. in view of the relevant provision of Stamp Act,1899 and thus, there is neither violation of the Registration Act nor the Stamp Act. .....Saifuzzaman Chowdhury(Md.) =VS= Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, (Civil), 2023(1) [14 LM (AD) 375] ....View Full Judgment

The Registration Act, 1908
Section 60
State Acquisition and Tenancy Act, 1950
Section 96
Pre-emption– The cause of action for filing the pre-emption case arose on 30-12-2007 i.e. the date when the kabala under pre-emption was registered under section 60 of the Registration Act, 1908 and the amended provision of section 96 of the Act came into operation on 20-9-2006 by Act No. XXXIV of 2006. Therefore, through the pre-emption case was filed on 18-9-2006, it was before the actual date of cause of action. Thus, filing of the pre-emption case by contiguous land owner having not in existence on the date of cause of action, Chand Miah had no legal right of pre-emption to the case land transferred by the kabala concerned as a contiguous land owner. Facts and circumstances, Appellate Division finds that the High Court Division lawfully allowed the appeal and thereby, set-aside the judgment and order passed by the learned Joint District Judge, 2nd Court, Narayangonj. The appeal is dismissed and the impugned judgment and order dated 12-2-2013 passed by the High Court Division in First Miscellaneous Appeal No. 45 of 2011 is hereby affirmed. .....Chand Miah (Md) =VS= Alauddin Sarker, (Civil), 2022(1) [12 LM (AD) 167] ....View Full Judgment

Anti-Corruption Commission Act, 2004
Section-19 (1) and (2)
Section 63A of the Registration Act, 1908
Stamp Act, 1899
Evasion of registration fees and other duties for registering a deed of sale does not come within the schedule offences of the Anti-Corruption Commission Act, 2004:
With reference to the legal decision taken in the case of Sonali Jute Mills Ltd Vs. ACC reported in 22 BLC (AD) 147, the submission of the learned Advocate for the ACC is that sub-section(1) and (2) of section-19 have given wide jurisdiction to the Commission to inquire into and investigate any allegations whatsoever as covered in its schedule and in doing so, the ACC may direct any authority, public or private to produce relevant documents. But the allegation under the instant inquiry which is admittedly initiated on the allegation as stated in the application dated 11.12.2018 (Annexure-N) filed by the Respondent No.05 with regard to taking possession of RAJUK plot unlawfully creating forged documents and evasion of registration fees and other duties for registering a deed of sale does not come within the schedule offences of the Anti-Corruption Commission Act, 2004 rather it may come under the purview of Section 63A of the Registration Act, 1908 and under the provision of Stamp Act, 1899 and thus the said case law is not applicable to the case of the petitioners. It appears from the annexures of the writ petition that the subsequent sale between the petitioners and the Respondent No.4 was also held by a Court of law pursuant to a decree of specific performance of contract and thus there is no scope of taking possession of RAJUK plot unlawfully creating forged documents and evasion of registration fees and stamp fees at all. …Md. Atiqur Rahman & anr Vs. Bangladesh & ors, (Civil), 16 SCOB [2022] HCD 70 ....View Full Judgment

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.

Rule 46, 48 of the Registration Rules, 1973 and section 69 of the Registration Act, 1908:
Law is settled that identifier or witness of a document is not supposed to know the contents of the document but the identifier according to the Registration Rules is held to be the best competent person in whose presence the executant goes with the execution process before the registering officer. ...Sirajul Haque Howlader and ors Vs. Zulekha Begum & ors, (Civil), 17 SCOB [2023] HCD 199 ....View Full Judgment

Writ petition is not maintainable– Sections 71 to 77 of the Registration Act provide procedures to be followed in the event of refusal to register the deed presented for registration. In the present case the writ-petitioners claimed that they could not pursue the procedures provided in sections 71 to 77 due to the fact that the Sub-Registrar did not provide any reasons in writing for refusing to register the deed which was presented for registration.
There is a provision for appeal to the Registrar from the refusal of the Sub-Registrar to register any deed presented for registration, a right of appeal is provided under section 72 of the Registration Act. In our view the failure to provide written reasons for the refusal is not a ground for filing a writ-petition since the writ-petitioners could have filed an appeal before the Registrar stating the fact that the Sub-registrar did not provide written reasons in spite of legal notice to do so which is tantamount to refusal to register the deed that was presented for registration.
Appellate Division finds that since there is provision for appeal, the writ petition was not maintainable. Accordingly, the Rule issued by the High Court Division is discharged. The direction to register the deed is set aside and consequently the fact of the deed having been registered as a result of the over-zealous direction of the High Court Division is set aside. Registration of the deed in question is hereby cancelled. ...Horihor Tea Estate Ltd. =VS= Sreemoti Monisha Chakroborti, (Civil), 2021(2) [11 LM (AD) 58] ....View Full Judgment

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.

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

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