High Court Division · Civil Revisional Jurisdiction
Md. Mojnu Mridha v Mosammat Surutjan Bibi and others
Civil Revision 1042/2023 · Decided 5 July 2026
The pre-emptor, a co-sharer by inheritance in the holding, applied under section 96 of the State Acquisition and Tenancy Act to pre-empt land transferred by another co-sharer to the petitioner, a stranger purchaser, by a registered deed of March 2014. The petitioner contended that the pre-emptor had already transferred her whole share and ceased to be a co-sharer, that she knew of the sale in advance and waived her right, and that he had built a house on the land. The Senior Assistant Judge, Baghmara, Rajshahi allowed pre-emption and the Additional District Judge, Rajshahi dismissed the appeal. The High Court Division noted the concurrent findings that she was a co-sharer by inheritance, that the application was within time, that the petitioner was a stranger, that he had not proved her prior knowledge, the burden of which lay on him under section 103 of the Evidence Act, and that there was no proof of development. As those findings were based on evidence and not perverse, the Rule was discharged.
- Q1
Whether concurrent findings allowing pre-emption under section 96 of the State Acquisition and Tenancy Act in favour of a co-sharer by inheritance against a stranger purchaser should be disturbed in revision.
- The burden of proving that the pre-emptor had prior knowledge of the transfer lies on the pre-emptee who asserts it (Evidence Act, 1872, section 103).
- A bare claim of prior notice, without stating when, where and before whom it was given and without independent evidence, does not establish waiver, acquiescence or estoppel.
- A co-sharer by inheritance who applies within the statutory period may pre-empt a transfer to a stranger purchaser under section 96 of the State Acquisition and Tenancy Act.
- In revision under section 115(1) the High Court Division does not reappraise evidence merely because another view is possible, and will not disturb concurrent findings that are not shown to rest on misreading or non-consideration of evidence or an error of law.
The trial Court, therefore, rightly held that the burden of proving prior knowledge, as contemplated under section 103 of the Evidence Act, rested upon the petitioner, and that he failed to discharge it.
In the court’s own words.
Civil Revision 1042/2023, as published by the Supreme Court of Bangladesh. 11 pages, with paragraph numbers for citing.
1IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH
2HIGH COURT DIVISION
3(CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION)
Present:
4Mr Justice Abdur Rahman
5Civil Revision No. 1042 of 2023
6In the matter of:
7Md. Mojnu Mridha
……Preemptee-Appellant
Petitioner
-Versus-
8Mosammat Surutjan Bibi and others
… Preemptor-Respondents
Opposite parties
9Mr K.M. Zabir, Counsel
……..For the Petitioner
10Mr Md. Mesbahul Islam Asif, Counsel
…for the opposite parties.
11Date of Hearing: 28.06.2026 and 02.07.2026 A.D.
12Date of Judgment: 05.07.2026 A.D., Sunday,
21 Ashar, 1433 B.S.
JUDGMENT:
13Abdur Rahman, J:
14This Rule was issued at the instance of the petitioner under section 115(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, calling upon the opposite party 1 to show cause as to why the judgment and order dated 08.09.2022 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Rajshahi, disallowing the appeal, in Miscellaneous Appeal 66 of 2019, by affirming the judgment and order dated 27.08.2019 passed by the learned Senior Assistant Judge, Baghmara, Rajshahi in Miscellaneous Case 12 of 2014, allowing the preemption.
15At the time of issuance of the Rule, this Court was also pleased to stay the further proceedings in Miscellaneous Case 12 of 2014 pending before the learned Senior Assistant Judge, Baghmara, Rajshahi, for a period of six months from the date of the order.
16The relevant facts, shorn of unnecessary details, are that the suit property originally belonged to Mohor Sonar,
Jinjiri Bibi and Gunjuri Bibi. Upon the death of Mohor Sonar, his interest devolved upon his widow, Gunjuri Bibi, his daughter, Surutjan Bibi, and his sister, Jinjiri Bibi. Subsequently, Gunjuri Bibi died, leaving behind her sole heir, namely, Surutjan Bibi. Jinjiri Bibi also died, leaving behind her two sons, Md. Afsar Ali Piyada and Lagir Ali Piyada. After the death of Lagir Ali Piyada, his heirs succeeded to his interest in the property.
17The main contention of the pre-emptor is that without serving any notice upon her, defendant No.2 transferred the case land vide registered deed 2332 dated 05.03.2014 in favour of the present petitioner, who is admittedly a stranger purchaser. Upon learning of the transfer, she instituted Miscellaneous Case 12 of 2014 under section 96 of the State Acquisition and Tenancy Act, seeking pre-emption of the transferred land.
18Thereafter, the petitioner-pre-emptee entered an appearance and contested the proceeding by filing a written objection that denied the material allegations in
the application. It was contended, inter alia, that the application suffered from a defect of parties; that the applicant had already transferred her entire share in the holding and thereby ceased to be a co-sharer, and she had prior knowledge of the transfer but intentionally declined to purchase the property; and after purchase, the petitioner constructed a dwelling house over the land and has been possessing the same.
19Upon due consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties, the learned Senior Assistant Judge, by judgment and order dated 27.08.2019, allowed the application for preemption.
20Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred Miscellaneous Appeal 66 of 2019 before the learned District Judge, Rajshahi, which was subsequently transferred to the learned Additional District Judge, 3rd Court, Rajshahi for hearing and disposal. Upon hearing the
parties, the appellate Court dismissed the appeal by judgment and order dated 08.09.2022 and affirmed the judgment and order of the trial Court.
21Being dissatisfied with the concurrent findings of the Courts below, the petitioner has invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court.
22Mr K.M. Zabir, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that both the Courts below failed to appreciate the evidence on record in its proper perspective and thereby committed errors of law and facts resulting in an erroneous decision occasioning failure of justice.
23He contends that after purchasing the disputed land, the petitioner constructed a residential house thereon and has been residing on the property; therefore, the application for pre-emption under section 96 of the State Acquisition and Tenancy Act was not maintainable.
24Mr Zabir further submits that the opposite party had already transferred her entire share in R.S. Khatian 380 and consequently lost her status as a co-sharer. Moreover, the case is barred by the principle of waiver and acquiescence. He also posits that, during crossexamination, the opposite party admitted that the lands had long been separately possessed under separate khatians, thereby clearly demonstrating that she had neither a subsisting title nor possession in the suit property. Accordingly, he prays that the impugned judgments and orders be set aside.
25On the contrary, Mr Md. Mesbahul Islam Asif, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party 1, supports the impugned judgments. He submits that both the Courts below, upon proper appreciation of the evidence on record, concurrently found that the opposite party is a co-sharer by inheritance, and the application for pre-emption was instituted within the statutory period of
limitation, and the petitioner is a complete stranger purchaser.
26He further submits that the petitioner failed to produce any cogent evidence to establish either prior notice of the transfer or the alleged construction of a dwelling house over the suit land. He therefore prays for the discharge of the Rule.
27I have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the revisional application, the impugned judgments, and the Subordinate Courts' Records.
28The learned trial Court, while deciding the points for determination of the case regarding prior knowledge of the transfer, observed that although the petitioner claimed to have informed the pre-emptor before the sale, he failed to disclose when, where and in whose presence such information was communicated. No independent witness was examined to substantiate the alleged notice,
nor was any written refusal by the pre-emptor produced before the Court. The trial Court, therefore, rightly held that the burden of proving prior knowledge, as contemplated under section 103 of the Evidence Act, rested upon the petitioner, and that he failed to discharge it. Consequently, the Court held that the application was not barred by the doctrines of acquiescence, waiver or estoppel.
29The appellate Court independently re-appraised the evidence on record and concurred with the findings of the trial Court. It specifically found that the opposite party inherited her interest in the disputed holding from Mohor Sonar and thus remained a co-sharer in the tenancy. The appellate Court further found that the impugned transfer was effected on 04.03.2014, whereas the application for pre-emption was instituted on 31.03.2014, well within the period prescribed under section 96 of the State Acquisition and Tenancy Act. Accordingly, it affirmed the findings of the trial Court on all material issues.
30From the concurrent findings recorded by the Subordinate Courts, it appears that the following facts stand conclusively established:
31(i) the opposite party is a co-sharer in the holding by
32inheritance;
33(ii) the application for pre-emption was instituted
34within the statutory period of limitation;
35(iii) the petitioner is a stranger purchaser to the
36tenancy;
37(iv) the petitioner failed to prove that the pre-emptor
38had prior knowledge of the transfer;
39(v) the plea that the proceeding suffered from a
40defect of parties was found to be without
41substance; and (vi) no proof of development of the case property is
42available on the face of the record.
43However, it is well settled that this Court, while exercising revisional jurisdiction under section 115(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, does not function as a Court of appeal to reappraise the evidence merely
because another view is possible. Unless the concurrent findings of fact are shown to have been arrived at by misreading the evidence, non-consideration of material evidence, coram non-judice, or by committing an error of law occasioning failure of justice, interference in revision is wholly unwarranted.
44In the instant case, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that either of the Subordinate Courts misread the evidence or ignored any material piece of evidence. On the contrary, both the Courts have meticulously examined the pleadings, oral testimony and documentary evidence before arriving at concurrent findings of fact. Those findings are based upon evidence on record and are neither perverse nor contrary to law.
45Accordingly, I find no illegality, impropriety or jurisdictional error in the impugned judgments warranting interference by this Court in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.
46As a result, the Rule is discharged.
47There shall, however, be no order as to costs.
48The petitioner is at liberty to withdraw the amount deposited towards the consideration money of the preempted property from the trial Court, if not already withdrawn, in accordance with law.
49Let the Subordinate Courts' Records (SCR) be transmitted forthwith to the Courts concerned, together with a copy of this judgment.
( Abdur Rahman, J )
Related summaries.
From the record to your case.
Our advocates appear before both divisions of the Supreme Court. These are the practice areas that handle matters like this one.
- Supreme Court practice in BangladeshSlips, mentioning, cause lists and appearances→
- Case JourneysHow a case moves through the courts, step by step→
- Limitation and appeal deadline calculatorKnow your last day to file→
- Curative petitions in BangladeshFinality, article 104 and the case for reform→
- Constitution guideEvery article and amendment, animated→
- Bangladesh legal glossaryBangla and English legal terms, explained→
