Legislative status — 8 September 2026. This analysis concerns the Transfer of Property (Amendment) Bill, 2026. Parliament passed the Bill on 6 September 2026, but the official materials reviewed do not establish presidential assent or publication of a final enacted Act. The proposed sections discussed below should not be treated as currently in force unless and until official publication confirms that position.
A passed Bill would create a distinct family-property route: ownership may pass, while a donor’s lifetime enjoyment of the asset is expressly reserved. The legal status, registration architecture and distinction from Hiba require careful reading.
The key point: this is not a change to Hiba itself
Bangladesh’s Parliament has passed the Transfer of Property (Amendment) Bill, 2026, which would insert proposed sections 122A and 122B into the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Its practical purpose is straightforward but legally significant: it would create a statutory mechanism allowing a donor to transfer ownership of property while retaining the right to use and enjoy that property during the donor’s lifetime. The official Bill calls this a “Gift with reservation of right of usufruct.”1
The proposal has attracted public attention as a “Heba law” update. That description is incomplete and potentially misleading. The Bill’s own text is more precise. Proposed section 122A(4) says that this arrangement would be a distinct mode of transfer and would not limit, derogate from, or otherwise affect the validity of a gift, Heba, or any other legally recognised form of transfer.1 In other words, the Bill is designed to sit alongside Hiba; it does not purport to replace, redefine, or invalidate Hiba.
That distinction matters. A family considering a property transfer should not assume that an existing Hiba structure, a conventional statutory gift, a will, or the proposed lifetime-usufruct gift are interchangeable. Each operates through a different legal architecture, with different questions around title, acceptance, possession, registration, succession, revocation and enforceability.
Legislative status comes before legal advice
The first analytical question is whether the measure is law. As of 8 September 2026, the primary government document located is an official Gazette of 27 August 2026 that publishes Jatiya Sangsad Bill No. 105 of 2026—the Transfer of Property (Amendment) Bill, 2026.1 Bangladesh Sangbad Sangstha, the national news agency, reported that the Jatiya Sangsad passed the Bill on 6 September 2026.2 Contemporary reporting also states that presidential assent is required before the Bill becomes law.3
Accordingly, the present position should be stated carefully: the Bill has passed Parliament, but the reviewed official materials do not yet confirm final enactment or commencement. A deed should not be drafted or registered on the assumption that proposed sections 122A and 122B are already operative. Before relying on the proposed regime, parties and advisers should verify the official assent notice, final statutory text, effective date, and any registration-office implementation guidance.
Why this matters: A Bill’s published text is strong evidence of legislative intent and parliamentary language. It is not, by itself, proof that a provision is in force, that it has not changed before assent, or that registrars and courts must already apply it.
What proposed section 122A would do
Proposed section 122A would validate a gift of movable or immovable property in which the donor retains the right of lifetime enjoyment—described in the Bill as usufruct rights.1 The proposal separates two interests that are often treated together in family discussions: ownership would move to the donee, while the donor’s entitlement to use, occupy, or enjoy the property during life would remain attached to the property.
The statutory scheme is not framed as an unrestricted device available to every donor and every recipient. Its proposed family scope is specific. It would apply to a gift by a parent or grandparent to a child or grandchild, vice versa, or between spouses. The Bill therefore does not, on its face, create a general right to transfer to any friend, business associate, trust vehicle, or extended relative while retaining lifetime usufruct.1
| Proposed feature | What the official Bill says | Practical significance |
|---|---|---|
| Property | The route covers movable and immovable property. | The relevant title, possession and registration analysis will differ by asset type. |
| Eligible relationship | Parent/grandparent to child/grandchild, vice versa, or between spouses. | The statutory route is family-limited; the relationship should be evidenced and checked. |
| Donor’s retained right | The donor may reserve lifetime enjoyment/usufruct rights. | Ownership and lifetime enjoyment would be legally separated if the measure is enacted. |
| Immovable property formalities | The Bill requires a declaration under section 122A upon execution of a deed registered under section 17(1)(a) of the Registration Act, 1908. | Registration and the precise deed language would be central rather than incidental. |
| Donee dies first | The property moves to the donee’s heirs according to law, while the donor’s enjoyment right continues and remains attached to the property. | A lifetime right would not automatically disappear simply because the first donee dies. |
| Relationship to Hiba | It is a distinct mode of transfer and does not affect Hiba or other recognised transfers. | The proposal should not be presented as repealing, replacing or invalidating Hiba. |
The Bill’s treatment of the donee’s death illustrates why this is more than a simple “parent keeps living in the home” rule. Proposed section 122A(3) provides that if the donee dies during the donor’s lifetime, the property passes to the donee’s heirs according to law, while the donor’s enjoyment right continues and remains attached to it.1 Any family considering such a transfer would therefore need to understand not only the donor–donee relationship, but also the possible interaction with the donee’s heirs and the property’s later title history.
How the proposal differs from an ordinary statutory gift
The current Transfer of Property Act defines a gift in section 122 as a voluntary, gratuitous transfer of existing movable or immovable property by a donor to a donee, accepted by or on behalf of the donee. Acceptance must occur during the donor’s lifetime and capacity to give; if the donee dies before acceptance, the gift is void.4
For immovable property, current section 123 requires a registered instrument signed by or on behalf of the donor and attested by at least two witnesses. It also provides that a Hiba under Muhammadan law is deemed to be a gift of immovable property for that purpose.4
Proposed section 122A would add a targeted statutory structure expressly addressing the donor’s retained lifetime enjoyment. It would not erase section 122’s definition of gift, section 123’s formalities, or section 126’s existing rules on suspension and revocation. Instead, it would introduce a distinct, family-specific form of transfer with a dedicated registration and revocation framework.
| Route | Core organising idea | Who may use it | Retained lifetime enjoyment | Current/proposed status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ordinary gift under the Transfer of Property Act | Voluntary transfer without consideration, with acceptance. | Determined by the applicable law and facts. | Must be assessed under the existing statutory and factual framework. | Current Chapter VII framework.4 |
| Hiba | A form of gift recognised in the context of Muslim law. | Depends on the applicable personal-law and factual analysis. | The Bill does not purport to replace or alter it. | Current section 123 addresses registration treatment for immovable-property Hiba; proposed section 122A(4) expressly preserves Hiba.1 |
| Proposed section 122A gift | Transfer of ownership while reserving donor’s lifetime usufruct. | Parent/grandparent and child/grandchild, vice versa, or spouses. | Expressly built into the proposed statutory route. | Passed Bill; final enactment/commencement must be verified.1 3 |
What the Bill says about Hiba—and what it does not say
The phrase “Heba law” should be used cautiously. The official English Bill uses the spelling “Heba”, while many legal and public discussions use “Hiba.” The important point is not spelling but legal classification. Proposed section 122A(4) expressly states that a transfer under the new section would not be construed as limiting, derogating from, or otherwise affecting the validity of any gift, Heba, or other recognised mode of transfer.1
That is a legislative preservation clause. It supports the proposition that the proposed statutory regime is intended to operate alongside Hiba, not as a substitute for it. It does not eliminate the need to examine the applicable personal-law rules, the precise form of the intended transaction, the property’s title, acceptance, possession, registration requirements and the parties’ evidence.
The Bill also does not support several broader claims that have circulated in public discussion. It does not say that every lifetime reservation arrangement is automatically valid. It does not create an unrestricted donor power to revoke unilaterally after registration. It does not, in the text reviewed, impose a blanket ban on a donee’s later sale or mortgage during the donor’s lifetime. Nor does it enact a special summary cancellation procedure based solely on neglect or mistreatment. Those may be policy questions raised during parliamentary debate, but they should not be presented as enacted—or even proposed—rules unless they appear in the final official text.1
Registration would be central, not cosmetic
For immovable property, the Bill’s design is deliberately formal. Proposed section 122A(2) requires the gift to be made by a declaration under the section upon execution of a deed registered under section 17(1)(a) of the Registration Act, 1908.1 That language should not be reduced to an informal family assurance or a simple possession arrangement.
A sound legal review would ordinarily need to address the donor’s title, the exact identity and description of the property, encumbrances and co-owner rights, the capacity and relationship of the parties, the intended scope of the retained enjoyment right, possession and income arrangements, the outcome if the donee predeceases the donor, and the registration record. Where a person is elderly, unwell, dependent or vulnerable, the evidence of informed and voluntary decision-making may be especially important.
This is not a checklist for self-drafting. It is a reason to obtain an integrated property, succession, registration and applicable-personal-law review before attempting to use the proposed mechanism.
Revocation: the proposal is more constrained than public summaries suggest
Proposed section 122B would make a section 122A gift irrevocable after registration, subject to two routes.1
First, the donor and donee could mutually consent through a registered deed to vary, revoke, or otherwise deal with the rights created under section 122A where a financial, medical, educational, family or other genuine necessity makes that necessary. Second, if one party’s consent cannot be obtained because of minority, disappearance, unsoundness of mind, legal incapacity or another sufficient cause, the other party could apply to the District Judge. Before authorising a variation, revocation or dealing, the court would need to give notice to interested persons, conduct the inquiry it considers necessary, and be satisfied that the application is made in good faith.1
The language is significant for two reasons. It treats registration as a point of legal finality, and it directs any departure from that finality into either a registered mutual-consent process or a judicially supervised process. It should therefore not be described as a mechanism through which a donor can simply cancel a completed transfer at will.
A practical family scenario
Assume a parent owns a Dhaka apartment and wants an adult child to have eventual ownership but does not want to lose the legal ability to live in the apartment or enjoy rental income during the parent’s lifetime. Under the proposed statutory route, the parent could potentially transfer ownership to that child while reserving lifetime enjoyment, provided the statutory relationship and formal requirements are met and the regime is in force at the relevant time.1
The result would not be the same as “nothing changes until death.” The donee would hold an ownership interest, while the donor’s lifetime enjoyment right would remain attached to the property. If the donee died first, proposed section 122A(3) contemplates the property passing to the donee’s heirs according to law, subject to the continuing lifetime right of enjoyment retained by the donor.1
That scenario shows why the document cannot be approached as a standard family deed. The intended home, rental income, taxes, maintenance, use by other family members, financing, later succession and property records may all require careful treatment. The right answer depends on the property and the family’s facts—not merely on a headline about parental protection.
Questions families should resolve before using any new framework
Before acting, a family should first establish whether the Bill has become law and whether the final enacted text matches the gazetted Bill. The parties should then identify the true purpose of the transaction: immediate transfer, succession planning, housing security, income retention, care arrangements, or a combination of these. Those purposes may point to different legal tools.
They should also map the property’s title and constraints. A transfer may involve jointly held property, mortgaged property, leased property, disputed title, agricultural land, company-held assets or interests that cannot be isolated by a simple family agreement. The legal and financial effects of a lifetime enjoyment right should be drafted with precision, including who may occupy the property, who receives income, who pays expenses, what happens if the home is sold or damaged, and how the retained right appears in records.
Finally, the parties should consider capacity, independent advice, documentary evidence and potential future disputes. A structure that is intended to protect a parent can still become contentious if the title record, registration, scope of the retained right, or succession consequences are unclear.
Frequently asked questions
Has Bangladesh changed Hiba law?
The passed Bill does not say that it changes or replaces Hiba. Proposed section 122A(4) expressly provides that the new lifetime-usufruct gift is a distinct transfer route and does not affect the validity of any gift, Heba, or another recognised mode of transfer.1
Is the new arrangement already in force?
Who could use the proposed section 122A route?
The Bill limits it to transfers between parents/grandparents and children/grandchildren, in either direction, and between spouses. It is not written as an open-ended route for every relationship.1
Could a donor keep living in or earning income from the property?
The proposal would permit a donor to reserve the right of lifetime enjoyment/usufruct. The exact scope of occupation, use and income should be drafted and assessed against the final enacted text, the property record and the parties’ facts.1
Can the donor revoke the proposed gift alone after registration?
Not according to the Bill text reviewed. Proposed section 122B provides for registered mutual-consent change in defined genuine-necessity circumstances, or District Judge authorisation where consent cannot be obtained for specified reasons and the statutory grounds are met.1
Conclusion
The proposed lifetime-usufruct gift regime is a major development in Bangladesh family-property planning because it would make the split between ownership and lifetime enjoyment explicit in a family-limited statutory transfer route. It responds to a real practical concern: a person may wish to pass ownership within the family without surrendering the ability to live in, use or derive income from the property during life.
But it should not be oversold as a new Hiba regime, a universal solution to family conflict, or a self-executing deed template. The official Bill preserves Hiba and other recognised transfers, sets narrow relationship and registration conditions, and proposes a constrained post-registration variation and revocation structure.1 The immediate task is to monitor final enactment and then analyse the enacted text—not the social-media version of it—against the title, succession and personal-law facts of each proposed transaction.
Clarity before a family-property decision.
The proposed arrangement turns on title, registration, succession and the facts of the family. TRW & Co can assess the available legal routes after the final statutory position is confirmed.
Legal notice: This article is general information, reflects the sources and legislative status stated above, and is not legal advice. No person should prepare, register, vary or revoke a property instrument on the basis of this article alone. A transaction-specific review should be obtained from a suitably qualified Bangladesh property and succession lawyer after the final statutory status has been verified.