Details |
The execution of the plaintiff’s deed of gift by the admitted 4 owners of
the suit land is admitted by the contesting defendants. The contesting
defendants case is that since the four owners of the suit land executed the
transfer deeds in their favour earlier though those are subsequently
registered, the plaintiff’s deed executed later by the same vendors was
invalid. But it appears that to substantiate this case the contesting
defendants could not adduce any evidence at all to prove the genuineness of
their alleged deeds. None of the scribe, attesting witnesses or identifiers
of the alleged deeds of the defendants have been examined before Court by
the contesting defendants. The Courts below, therefore, rightly found that
the contesting defendants could not prove the genuineness of their alleged
deeds at all. The High Court Division rightly made observation to the
effect also that since the defendants failed to prove the genuineness of
their deeds the plaintiff did not require to make a prayer for declaration
of these deeds as false, forged and invalid etc. .....Sreenath Sen =VS=
Laxmi Rani Boiragi, (Civil), 2018 (2) [5 LM (AD) 159] ....View Full Judgment
Declaration that Kabala No. 908 dated 04.03.2001 executed by defendant No.
3 in favour of defendant No. 1 and Kabala No. 7442 dated 26.07.2001 that
the learned Judge of the Single Bench considered the evidence on record,
both oral and documentary, the findings of the Appellate Court on the
question of plaintiffs title and possession in the suit land and the
genuineness of the kabalas challenged in the suit and found those based on
proper appreciation of the evidence on record. .....Abdul Malek =VS= Abdul
Jalil & others, (Civil), 2016-[1 LM (AD) 275] ....View Full Judgment
Declaration Suit–
The High Court Division correctly found that the transaction was a sale and
not a gift, but then erred in not concluding that consequently the
plaintiffs claim of the deed being a deed of gift was not proved. The
plaintiff had to prove that he signed the papers believing that he was
signing an agreement for the cinema hall and not a deed of gift. But none
of the plaintiffs witnesses supported the plaintiffs claim. Hence, the
plaintiffs case was not proved. Thus the impugned judgement and order
cannot be sustained.
The evidence on record unquestionably discloses that the transaction was
one of sale. It is equally evident that the requisite stamp duties were not
paid at the time of registering the deed in question.
We are of the opinion that the plaintiff did not prove his case in
accordance with law. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned
judgement and order of the High Court Division is set aside. …Nazimuddin
Mondal =VS= Abul Kalam Azad, (Civil), 2019 (2) [7 LM (AD) 312] ....View Full Judgment
Declaration suit–
The trial Court and the High Court Division overlooked the admission
corroborated by documentary evidence that the deeds of transfer by the
plaintiff and his others siblings show that the land which they transferred
prior to 1980 had been theirs by dint of amicable partition.
It is noteworthy that having lost at the appellate stage, they did not
challenge the decision of the appellate Court by filing any revision before
the High Court Division. Such behaviour of respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4
further diminishes the case of respondent No.1.
We find that the decision of the High Court Division upholding that of the
trial Court cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The
judgement of the High Court Division is set aside and the suit is thus
dismissed. ...Nurjahan Begum =VS Ali Ahammad Mollah, (Civil), 2020 [9 LM
(AD) 28] ....View Full Judgment
Declaration suit–
We are of the view that both the trial Court as well as the High Court
Division properly decided that the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit
property uninterruptedly for more than 30-35 years. We find no misreading
or non-consideration of the evidence on record by the trial Court or the
High Court Division. Therefore, the declaration of the plaintiffs’ title
to the suit property (C.S. Plot No. 1069, 2nd schedule property) appears to
be lawful. The judgment and decree in favour of the plaintiffs relating to
the suit property (2nd schedule) is hereby affirmed. ...Binode Chandra
Debnath =VS= Harendra Debnath, (Civil), 2020 [9 LM (AD) 50] ....View Full Judgment
|