Details |
We are of the opinion that the trial court rightly dismissed the suit of
the plaintiff, but the appellate court below most erroneously and illegally
set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court and decreed the suit
of the plaintiff and the High Court Division also most erroneously affirmed
this judgment and decree of the appellate court below. Appeal be allowed
without any order as to cost. The impugned judgment and order of the High
Court Division and also the judgment and decree of the appellate court
below are set aside and the judgment and decree of the trail court be
restored. .....Younus Mia (Md.) =VS= Mosharaf Hossain, (Civil), 2018 (1) [4
LM (AD) 342] ....View Full Judgment
Title suit–
It is a cardinal principle of law that the plaintiff must prove his case in
order to get a decree in his favour. Time and again this Court has held
that the weakness of the defendants case is no ground for passing a decree
in favour of the plaintiff (Md. Naimuddin Sarder @ Naimuddin Sarder Vs. Md.
Abdul Kalam Biswas @ Md. Abul Kalam Basiruddin @ Abul Kalam Azad & anr
reported in 39 DLR(AD)237 and also Khondoker Mobarak Ali –vs- Jahanara
Begum and others reported in 1 ADC 401.)
Facts and circumstances, it is abundantly clear that the judgement and
decree of the trial Court was patently erroneous and based upon misreading
of evidence. The appellate Court properly reversed the judgement of the
trial Court. Evidently the claim of the plaintiff was falsified by the
production of the S.A. record of rights, which falsified the claim of the
plaintiff and, on the other hand, proved that the S.A. records were in the
names of the defendants.
The judgement of the High Court Division is palpably erroneous, being
contrary to settled principle of law and wrong interpretation of statute.
We find merit in the appeal, which is accordingly allowed. The judgement
and order of the High Court Division is hereby set aside. ...Nazimuddin
Mondal =VS= Kushal Mondal, (Civil), 2019 (2) [7 LM (AD) 25] ....View Full Judgment
Title Suit–
The practice of endorsing return of consideration money on the back of the
deed of transfer is sufficient to indicate a mortgage. It is not a case of
oral evidence contradicting the terms of a written document. Here, the term
of the Patta deed is amended by written endorsement which has been signed
by the maker of the endorsement. Moreover, the endorsement on the back of
the Patta is supported by the witness to the endorsement, namely, Md. Abdul
Aziz Mulla(P.W.3) and the fact that the original Patta with the endorsement
was returned to the predecessor of the plaintiffs is evidenced by the fact
that it was produced in court from the custody of the plaintiffs.We note
the half-hearted attempt of the defendants while cross examining P.W.1 to
prove that the Patta deed was cleverly taken by P.W.1 from D.W.1 at the
settlement office. This was not supported by the sole witness of the
defendants, namely D.W.1.
We find merit in the appeal, which is accordingly allowed. The judgement
and order of the High Court Division is hereby set aside, and the judgement
and decree of the appellate Court is restored. ...Abdul Hadi Gazi =VS=
Mostafa Alamgir Siddique, (Civil), 2021(1) [10 LM (AD) 687] ....View Full Judgment
|