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

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

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

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

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

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

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