High Court Division
Ashraf Hussain (by his heirs) v Haji Asaduzzaman Bhuiyan and others
Civil Revision 3927/2015 · Rule made absolute; suit decreed · Decided 14 September 2026
The plaintiff sued in 1985 for declaration of title to, and recovery of possession of, 2 decimals of land in Brahmanbaria, relying on a registered sale deed dated 25.02.1976 and alleging that the defendants had dispossessed him. Defendants 1 and 2 claimed under an earlier unregistered agreement for sale (baina patra) dated 09.11.1974 and a sale deed registered in October 1976. After a decree, an appellate reversal, a remand, a dismissal and a further appellate remand, the plaintiff and defendant 1 each filed a civil revision. As sufficient evidence was on record, the High Court Division decided the suit on the merits. It found that the plaintiff had proved title, possession and dispossession, that the baina patra and the defendants' deed were fabricated, and that the suit land was properly identified. The plaintiff's earlier registered deed prevailed. The plaintiff's Rule was made absolute, the defendant's Rule was discharged, and the suit was decreed with possession to be handed over within 30 days.
- Whether the revisional court should decide a suit pending since 1985 on the merits instead of remanding it again.
- Whether the defendants' claim under an earlier unregistered agreement for sale could defeat the plaintiff's earlier registered sale deed.
- Whether the suit land was sufficiently specified for a decree for recovery of possession.
- Where sufficient evidence is on record and the suit has been pending since 1985, justice is best served by deciding it on the merits in revision rather than remanding it again.
- Defendants cannot claim priority over the plaintiff's earlier registered deed by relying on an alleged earlier unregistered baina patra, and their title does not relate back to the date of that agreement; section 47 of the Registration Act did not assist them.
- The baina patra, bearing court seals dated 23.08.1971 though said to have been executed in 1974, and the defendants' deed, with unexplained stamp purchases and seals in black ink contrary to rule 45(2) of the Registration Rules, were fabricated and fraudulent.
- The suit land was sufficiently identified through the plaint schedule, the deed schedule, the witnesses and the Advocate Commissioner's report and map, so Order 7 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure was complied with; one or two complex sentences describing the boundaries do not make the land uncertain.
- A finally published B.S. khatian under section 144A of the State Acquisition and Tenancy Act is a public document under section 74(1)(iii) of the Evidence Act with strong presumptive value when supported by other evidence, and the Court may take notice of a certified copy in the interest of justice even if not formally proved.
The defendants cannot claim priority over the plaintiff's earlier registered deed merely by relying upon an alleged earlier unregistered baina patra. The title claimed by the defendants cannot be treated as relating back to the date of the alleged baina patra.
