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