Declaration of title to the suit land and for recovery of its possession–
The trial Court did not at all discuss the evidence of the PWs in deciding the question of possession of the suit land. The Appellate Court being the last Court of fact did not at all apply its mind and it simply dittoed the findings of the trial Court. The High Court Division also relied upon the judgment of the Appellate Court saying that it was the last Court of fact without looking in to the fact whether the Courts below considered the evidence on record in dismissing the suit. We find it proper to send the revision back to the High Court Division for hearing afresh and dispose of the same in accordance with law on the evidence on record. .....Md. Chan Miah & others =VS= Md. Afazuddin Bhuiyan & another, (Civil), 2016-[1 LM (AD) 142] ....View Full Judgment

Declaration of her title in .39 acre of land stating for declaration of title without prayer for partition is not maintainable–
We find from the plaint that the description of the suit land as given in the schedule to the plaint is discrepant vis-à-vis the deposition of the plaintiff in cross-examination. Also in his deposition P.W. 1 admitted that in 29 decimals of land in the Southern part, both he and the defendant are in possession. In such circumstances, the parties, if so advised, may take recourse to a proper suit. In view of such facts and circumstances the proper course would have been for the parties to file a partition suit. .....Arabind Mallik & others =VS= Joydeb & others, (Civil), 2016-[1 LM (AD) 282] ....View Full Judgment

Declaration of title– Appellate Court misread the evidence in finding that the suit land is cultivable land–
Part of the suit plot was halot. In this regard we find from the khatian that plot No. 51 is recorded as halot whereas plot No. 102 is recorded as beel. The appellate Court has therefore misread the evidence in finding that the suit land is cultivable land. A proper scrutiny of Ext.1 would show that in C.S. Khatian No.3 plot No.51 is a “halot” and plot No.102 is a “beel”. Thus, clearly the suit land is a waterbody and not cultivable land. Hence, the claim of the plaintiffs of possession in land of plot No.102 was rightly rejected by the trial Court. .....Hajee Abdul Majid =VS= Jahir Uddin, (Civil), 2018 (1) [4 LM (AD) 217] ....View Full Judgment

Declaration of title and confirmation of possession– The High Court Division elaborately discussed the evidence and materials afresh and noted that DW1 in his evidence admitted that during pendency of the suit, the plaintiffs side entered into possession in the disputed plot and erected a pucca dwelling house. Erecting a pucca dwelling house on 1 decimal land was found to be improbable by the trial Court and the High Court Division. In view of the partial admission of possession and also the voter list of 1976, the High Court Division held that the Courts below were justified in holding that the plaintiffs were in possession of the disputed plot. The High Court Division also observed that one bigha land normally comprises 33 decimals. The onus lay upon the defendants to show that three bighas land equal to 178 decimals, which they did not prove. There is a road separating plot Nos.1135 and 1137 from the suit plot No.1136. In our view it has been rightly held that the compact 3 bighas plot does not extend to the other side of the road onto the suit plot. We do not find any illegality or impropriety in the impugned judgement and order of the High Court Division. .....Mohammad Rois Uddin =VS= Sree Anil Kumar Mondol, (Civil), 2018 (2) [5 LM (AD) 145] ....View Full Judgment

Possession-For declaration of title in the suit land–
The claim by the plaintiffs is that they took pattan from the C.S. tenant Brojo Hori, but they could not produce any document to substantiate their claim. In the absence of any evidence as to how the plaintiffs got title to the suit land and considering the fact that the S.A. and R.S. records are in the name of the Government, the admission by D.W. 2 regarding possession by the plain-tiffs is of no help to the plaintiffs. .....Md. Soleman Ali Akan & others =VS= Mst. Taramon Bewa & others, (Civil), 2016-[1 LM (AD) 235] ....View Full Judgment

Declaration of title with khas possession–
We find no wrong, illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment of the High Court Division. Rather, we find that the High Court Division was quite correct and justified in restoring the judgment and decree of the trial Court setting aside the judgment and decree of the appellate Court. .....Bishow Ram Chawhan =VS= Rabeya Bari Chowdhury, (Civil), 2017 (2)– [3 LM (AD) 181] ....View Full Judgment

The High Court Division has totally ignored that aspect and illegally interfered with the judgments keeping those finding intact. Thus it has exercised power not vested by law, inasmuch as, it cannot interfere with the findings of fact arrived at by the final court of fact in the absence of any misreading or non-consideration of the evidence on record. .....ADC (Rev), Rangpur =VS= Amir Hossain, (Civil), 2017 (2)– [3 LM (AD) 3] ....View Full Judgment

Declaration of title– Appellate Court being the last court of fact–
The appellate Court, being the last court of fact, reversed the finding of the trial Court that Mofezuddin died after Dholu Sikder upon proper appreciation of the evidence and materials on record. The appellate Court allowed the cross objection filed by defendant Nos.1-3. The High Court Division upon considering the judgement and decree of the appellate Court upheld the same. We find that the impugned judgement and order does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity and does not call for any interference by this Division. The civil petition for leave to appeal is dismissed without, however, any order as to costs. …Aysha Siddika(Most) =VS= Nizam Uddin Sikder, (Civil), 2019 (2) [7 LM (AD) 212] ....View Full Judgment

Declaration of title and recovery of Khas possession–
Having considered the documentary evidence on record including exhibit-1, the sale deed of the plaintiff and exhibit-Uma(1), the deed standing in the name of the plaintiff’s father Jachechu Mamud, the High Court Division came to a finding that the kabala in favour of the plaintiff was registered earlier than the kabala in the name of the plaintiff’s father. The High Court Division also found that from recital of the deed of sale, it appeared that the suit land was purchased by the plaintiff with his own money and that the consideration in respect of exhibit-1 having been paid by the plaintiff, it should be treated as a genuine document. We do not find any substance in this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed without any order as to costs. …Kazi Nayebul Haque =VS= Md. Jalal Uddin, (Civil), 2020 (1) [8 LM (AD) 120] ....View Full Judgment

Declaration of title and recovery of khas possession–
The trial Court by its judgment and order dated 30.09.1998 dismissed the suit. Against the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the plaintiffs preferred Title Appeal No. 406 of 1998 before the learned District Judge, Dhaka. On transfer, the appeal was heard and disposed of by the learned Additional District Judge, Third Court, Dhaka, who by his judgment and order dated 08.04.2001 dismissed the appeal affirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree of the appellate Court, the plaintiffs moved the High Court Division by filing a revisional application and obtained Rule in Civil Revision No. 3839 of 2001. Upon hearing the parties by the judgment and order dated 14.05.2009 made the Rule absolute without any order as to costs.
Since the plaintiffs failed to prove their case, they are not entitled to a decree. Therefore, the High Court Division was not justified in decreeing the suit setting aside the concurrent findings of fact of the Courts below.
We find substance in this appeal and accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment delivered by the High Court Division is set aside and the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below are restored. ...Arshad Hossain Haider =VS= Suza Uddoula, (Civil), 2020 [9 LM (AD) 32] ....View Full Judgment