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