Act/Law wise: Judgment of Supreme Court of Bangladesh (AD & HCD)
Partition Matter | |||
---|---|---|---|
Section/Order/ Article/Rule/ Regulation | Head Note | Parties Name | Reference/Citation |
Partition–– |
Partition––The Appellate Division is of the view that the High Court Division rightly found that the suit land is not an undivided dwelling house rather it is admit tedly a commercial place on which petitioners and other co-sharers have been conducting their business treating the suit land as commercial premises. Since the suit land is not a undivided dwelling house but a commercial place an application under section 4 of the Partition Act cannot be invoked to buy out the share of a stranger purchaser in the suit land. .....Hossain Shahid =VS= Abdul Wahab & others, [1 LM (AD) 394] ....View Full Judgment |
Hossain Shahid =VS= Abdul Wahab & others | 1 LM (AD) 394 |
Partition–– |
Partition–– The High Court Division did not decide the issues regarding
defect of party and hotchpot. But relied upon decisions of this Division to
the effect that the findings of the appellate Court as the last court of
fact are binding on the revisional Court. However, the High Court Division
did not consider the cited decisions of this Division where it has been
held that a suit for partition will not be defeated for reason of defect of
party and hotchpot. On the point of the quantum of land for which saham was
claimed, the High Court Division followed the appellate Court’s reasoning
and held that the plaintiffs could not get saham for 44 decimals in respect
of ⅓ share of the plaintiffs’ predecessor.
|
Mohammad Sayed =VS= Majuma Begum | 10 LM (AD) 109 |
Partition–– |
Partition–– Without amicable partition established amount the co-sharers the suit is not maintainable without the prayer for partition–– The story of amicable partition as claimed by the parties has not been established and that the parties claimed their shares from admitted co-sharers of plot and holding, we are of the view, that the instant suit was not maintainable without the prayer for partition. The parties may effect partition of their lands by bringing properly instituted suit. ...Ali Amzad Khan =VS= Md. Titan Khan, [10 LM (AD) 153] ....View Full Judgment |
Ali Amzad Khan =VS= Md. Titan Khan | 10 LM (AD) 153 |
Partition Suit–– Notice–– |
Partition Suit–– Notice–– The Court of facts, on considering the
evidence on record, particularly, considering the Vokalatnama executed by
the defendant No.46-respondent No.1 and her prayer for time for filing
written statement, came to the conclusion that the notice of the suit was
duly served upon her. Said finding of the fact has not been reversed by the
High Court Division.
|
Rowshan Akhtar Rahman(Md.) =VS= Most. Shilu Begum | 10 LM (AD) 179 |
Partition Suit–– Notice–– |
Partition suit–– The appellate Court, being the last court of
facts–– The appellate Court observed that on assessment of the evidence
of the witnesses, it does not appear that the plaintiff was ill at the time
of execution and registration of the disputed partition deed. It was
further observed that the plaintiff admitting the deed of partition
transferred land which he had acquired by dint of the deed of partition to
various people and copies of those deeds were produced by the defendants.
|
Ali Akber(Md.) =VS= Shahanara Khatun | 10 LM (AD) 702 |
Partition Suit–– |
Partition Suit–– The Advocate Commissioner prepared his report after actual physical measurement of the land on the basis of possession and title. The finding of the Courts below the Advocate Commissioner rightly allocated saham to the parties. …Monowara Begum(Most.) =VS= Wahed Ali(Md.), [8 LM (AD) 320] ....View Full Judgment |
Monowara Begum(Most.) =VS= Wahed Ali(Md.) | 8 LM (AD) 320 |
Partition on determination of title |
Partition on determination of title and also for recovery of khas possession–– Concurrent findings of fact arrived by the Courts below interference by the High Court are set-aside–– Considered the judgments of all the Courts below, we are of the view that the High Court Division illegally interfered with the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the Courts below although we do not find any misreading or non consideration of evidence warranting interference by the High Court Division. We find substance in this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the impugned judgments and decrees delivered by the trial Court and the appellate Court are hereby restored. .....Sukendra Bikas Das =VS= Anil Baran Das, [5 LM (AD) 327] ....View Full Judgment |
Sukendra Bikas Das =VS= Anil Baran Das | 5 LM (AD) 327 |
Partition with declaration of Title Suit–– |
Partition with declaration of Title Suit–– Remand the Court for
trial–– The learned Senior Assistant Judge, Feni Sadar, Feni after
holding trial, decreed the suit in the preliminary form in favour of the
plaintiffs by his judgement and decree passed on 13.10.2002. Against the
said judgement and decree of the trial Court, the defendants as appellants
preferred Title Appeal No.118 of 2002 before the learned District Judge,
Feni. Subsequently the said appeal was heard by the learned Joint District
Judge, 2nd Court, Feni who after hearing the same by his judgement and
decree dated 28.05.2007 allowed the appeal and sent the suit back to the
trial Court for retrial.
|
Abdul Gofran =VS= Hafezer Rahman | 6 LM (AD) 212 |
Any question arises over possession |
Any question arises over possession or dispossession then the parties can
file a suit for partition–– It is by now an established principle of
law that in a suit for permanent injunction or where there is a prayer for
recovery of possession, there has to be specificity about the land claimed
by the plaintiffs. [see Moharram Ali and another Vs. Mohammad Madhu Mia and
others, 41DLR(AD)92].
|
Sufala Rani =VS= Balai Mondal | 7 LM (AD) 20 |
A co-sharer in possession can maintain |
A co-sharer in possession can maintain her possession until partition––
It is well settled that a co-sharer in possession can maintain her
possession until partition. A co-sharer in exclusive possession of land,
even if, in excess of his/her actual share, cannot be dispossessed
otherwise than by partition and hence a co-sharer in exclusive possession
can bring a suit for permanent injunction against the other co-sharers-who
threaten him/her with dispossession.
|
Noor Jahan Begum(Mst.) =VS= Giasuddin | 9 LM (AD) 82 |
The High Court Division has erred in modifying |
The High Court Division has erred in modifying the decree passed on concurrent findings of fact upon reassessing the evidence–– The Appellate Division finds on calculation of the shares of the defendant in the suit land High Court Division accordingly decreed the suit. The Appellate Division has perused the said calculation and the appellant could not show any mistake or otherwise any defect in the said allottment of shares in allowing a separate saham in respect of 2.05 acres of land in favour of the plaintiffs instead of 3.48 1/2 acres of land as decreed by the Courts below allotting 16 annas share in suit land in favour of the plaintiff to the exclusion of the shares of defendants. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. .....Md. Yasin Khan & others =VS= Ayub Ali Khan & others, [1 LM (AD) 441] ....View Full Judgment |
Md. Yasin Khan & others =VS= Ayub Ali Khan & others | 1 LM (AD) 441 |
For recovery of khas possession– |
Partition on determination of title and also for recovery of khas
possession– Concurrent findings of fact arrived by the Courts below
interference by the High Court are set-aside–
|
Sukendra Bikas Das =VS= Anil Baran Das | 5 LM (AD) 327 |
Partition Matter– |
Further partition suit is possible for the rest joint property which has been left out from this case on showing of recurring cause of action– Further partition is possible for the rest joint property which has been left out from this case on showing of recurring cause of action, the appellate Court has arrived at a wrong decision of sending in the case to the lower Court on remand for holding trial afresh. Thus, the impugned judgment and decree of the appellate Court below is liable to be set aside. Appellate Division finds illegality and infirmity in the impugned judgment, which in our view calls for interference. The appeal is allowed without any order as to costs. The judgment and order of the High Court Division is set aside and thereby restored the judgment of the trial Court. .....Dr. Ehtesamul Haque Chowdhury =VS= Enamul Haque Chowdhury, (Civil), 2022(1) [12 LM (AD) 682] ....View Full Judgment |
Dr. Ehtesamul Haque Chowdhury =VS= Enamul Haque Chowdhury | 12 LM (AD) 682 |
Partition with declaration of Title Suit– |
Partition with declaration of Title Suit– Remand the Court for trial–
|
Abdul Gofran =VS= Hafezer Rahman | 6 LM (AD) 212 |