A registered document carries presumption of correctness of the endorsement–– The lower Courts as well as the High Court Division rightly observed that the heirs of Syed Ahmed have not challenged the deed in question. Moreover, when defendant No. 1 claims that the executant of the deed was insane at the time of the execution and registration of the deed, then the burden squarely upon him to prove such contention. We find that the defendant did not take any step to prove that when the deed was executed and registered, Syed Ahmed suffered from mental illness. .....Sultan Ahmed =VS= Md. Shajahan, [3 LM (AD) 463] ....View Full Judgment

Registered sale deed are not binding on the plaintiff–– It transpires that the High Court Division upheld the concurrent findings of the Courts below. Clearly when the deeds under challenge contain in the recital that the earlier deed No.4995 dated 23.11.1988 was executed and registered only for the purpose of resolving the dispute through the intervention of defendant No.1, who was the Chairman of the Union Parishad that deed was not a sale deed. Hence, the deeds executed by the Chairman are equally not deeds of sale but simply return of the property. When he failed, he returned the land. the Courts below rightly held that the deeds in question were not deeds of sale and no money changed hands. Accordingly, the deeds were not binding on the plaintiffs. .....Ashek Ahmed =VS= Samsunnahar, [3 LM (AD) 18] ....View Full Judgment

Genuineness of the title deed–– The alleged title deed of the plaintiffs shows that the same has been prepared subsequently on some old stamp papers by using new ink and we are satisfied that this deed was not executed and registered in the year 1945. Now it appears to us that since there was no existence of any title deed during trial, the appellants failed to produce the same before the trial Court although it bears a mark of exhibit filed in Title Suit No.37 of 1993. Already we have found that the said Title Suit No.37 of 1993 was decreed ex-parte. Thus, the High Court Division being the last Court of fact doubted the genuineness of the said title deed of 1945. .....Halima Khatun(Mrs.) =VS= Ministry of Health, [5 LM (AD) 292] ....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, [1 LM (AD) 423] ....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