Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act and Section 68 of the Evidence Act:
The law on attesting witness is guided by section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act and Section 68 of the Evidence Act. The scribe will not be an attesting witness unless he intends to sign the deed as such. In other words a scribe can play the dual role of a scribe and an attesting witness. ...Sirajul Haque Howlader and ors Vs. Zulekha Begum & ors, (Civil), 17 SCOB [2023] HCD 199 ....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

Transfer of Property Act [IV of 1882]
Section 60 read with
Artha Rin Adalat Ain [VIII of 2003]
Section 5(4)
Once the mortgaged property is sold in the execution process of a decree before the Artha Rin Adalat, the mortgagor shall lose his right to redeem the mortgaged property irrespective of any provisions in the Transfer of Property Act or any other laws applicable at the relevant time to the contrary.
The High Court Division held that the bank has already sold the said property through auction on the basis of the said certificate and respondent No. 6 has purchased the said property through such auction being the highest bidder therein. Not only that, sale certificate dated 10.09.2009 issued by the bank (Annexure-5 to the supplementary-affidavit of the respondent No. 6) further proves that the sale in favour of the respondent No. 6 through the said auction has in the meantime become final. Therefore, in view of the provisions under sub-section (4) of Section 5 of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003, the petitioner No. 2-mortgagor’s right to redeem the said mortgaged property as mentioned under ‘Kha’ Schedule has become extinguished with the sale of the said mortgaged property in favour of respondent No. 6 and, accordingly, the petitioner No. 2 has lost its right to redeem the said property for ever. Not only that, under the said provisions, the purchase by the respondent No. 6 has become a legal purchase and the same cannot be questioned under any circumstances in so far as his right to hold and own the said property is concerned. S.K. Amir Hossain and another. -Vs.- Government of Bangladesh and others. (Spl. Original) 2019 ALR (HCD) Online 193 ....View Full Judgment

The defendant forfeited their right to stay in the suit properties by denying the title of the plaintiffs and as such the contents of the notice or any purported facts are insignificant here. Because if someone denies title of the land lord, notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act may be dispensed with. Consequently the decision referred in 51 DLR 393 is not applicable here. On the other hand the case reported in 1 BLC AD 156 as reported by Mr. A.M. Amin Uddin has got semblance with the present case. ...Ramesh Chandra Das & ors Vs. Sureshwar Mazumdar & ors, (Civil), 5 SCOB [2015] HCD 96 ....View Full Judgment

Appellate court below allowed the appeal in part holding that the deed was not acted upon since there is no evidence that possession was delivered to the defendant no.1. This finding is not correct. Where the instrument of gift has been registered, delivery of possession is not essential for the validity of a gift by a Hindu. ...Renuka Rani Mondol Vs Biswajit Mondol & anr, (Civil), 5 SCOB [2015] HCD 33 ....View Full Judgment

The right of redemption of the mortgagor:
It is this Court’s view that the distinction between legal and equitable rights and interest does not exist under the existing legal régime governed by the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Thus, the right of redemption of the mortgagor is not an equitable right but a legal right conferred by statute. Therefore, a mortgagor under Bangladeshi law always retains a legal interest before and after the expiry of the date of payment. Therefore, the right of redemption is not an equitable form of relief to be given on such terms as the court considers equitable but a statutory right conferred and available only upon terms statutorily defined and stated. In view of the above, it is found that the Judgment- Debtors/Respondents being mortgagors of the property in question possessed an inalienable right to redeem their property at all material times. The right of the Respondents over the mortgaged property is, accordingly, found by this Court to have been created when the property was mortgaged. Such right remained inalienable and in fact even after expiry of the date of repayment. ...M. A. Hashem Vs. Artha Rin Adalat, Dhaka & ors, (Civil), 6 SCOB [2016] HCD 19 ....View Full Judgment