High Court Division · Civil Revisional Jurisdiction
Md. Ekhlash Uddin v Mukta Begum and others
Civil Revision 2353/2025 · Rule discharged · Decided 14 July 2026
The plaintiffs sued in the Court of the Senior Assistant Judge, Gafargaon for recovery of possession of 20.5 decimals of land. They claimed under an agreement for sale dated 08.01.2008 said to have been executed by one of two brothers who had jointly bought 61 decimals in 1997, and alleged that the defendants, the heirs of the other brother, dispossessed them on 25.07.2018. The defendants said that the vendor, an accused in the murder of his brother in 2004, had fled abroad and that the agreement was created later. The trial court dismissed the suit, and the plaintiff obtained a Rule under section 115(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The High Court Division found that execution of the agreement was not proved, since neither the vendor, nor the attesting witnesses, nor the deed writer proved it, and that the vendor had fled abroad soon after the killing. The land was never partitioned, the plaint schedule was vague, and no witness proved dispossession. The Rule was discharged.
- Whether the plaintiffs proved that their vendor executed the agreement for sale dated 08.01.2008 relied on for their title.
- Whether the plaintiffs proved their possession of and dispossession from the suit land so as to be entitled to a decree for recovery of possession.
- The plaintiffs failed to prove that their vendor executed the agreement dated 08.01.2008, as the deed writer did not prove his signature or handwriting, the witnesses to the deed were not examined and the vendor himself was not examined.
- Since the vendor, an accused in the murder of his brother and co-purchaser, fled abroad immediately after the killing, the question of his executing the 2008 agreement did not arise.
- The land was bought jointly by the two brothers and never partitioned, and the 2005 deed relied on by the plaintiffs conveyed land derived from the brothers' father rather than the deceased brother's share, which passed to the defendants by inheritance.
- No witness stated that the defendants dispossessed the plaintiffs in his presence, and the plaint gave only a vague schedule and boundary, so possession and dispossession were not proved and no decree for recovery of possession could be granted.
- The trial court correctly assessed and evaluated the evidence, and there was no merit in the Rule.
I am of the view that the plaintiffs failed to prove their possession in and subsequent dispossession from the suit land. Therefore, they are not entitled to get a decree of recovery of possession
