High Court Division · Civil Revisional Jurisdiction
Md. Abdul Majid Pondit (deceased) represented by heirs Md. Iqbal Hossain and others v Most. Sakena Khatun and others
Civil Revision 4257/2001 · Rule discharged · Decided 3 September 2026
The plaintiffs, heirs of the original owner, sued for a declaration that a registered exchange deed dated 05.03.1985, by which the owner was shown to have given 37 decimals of land to defendant No. 1, was forged, fraudulent and not binding. They alleged that it was created to defeat a pre-emption case and never acted upon. The Assistant Judge, Borhanuddin decreed the suit and the Sub-Judge, 1st Court, Bhola dismissed the defendant's appeal. In revision, the High Court Division noted that the owner had executed an earlier deed by thumb impression while the disputed deed bore a signature, that the defendant had not proved that signature, and that the plaintiffs remained in possession. The deed was registered at a Sub-Registry office lacking territorial jurisdiction over the land, with no sanction from the District Registrar, in breach of section 28 of the Registration Act, 1908. Since the defendant admitted the predecessor's ownership, no declaration of title was needed. Finding no error in the concurrent findings, the Court discharged the Rule.
- Whether a suit to declare an exchange deed forged and not binding was maintainable without a prayer for declaration of title.
- Whether a deed registered at a Sub-Registry office lacking territorial jurisdiction over the land was duly registered and evidence of execution.
- Whether the concurrent findings of the courts below warranted interference in revision.
- Where the plaintiff or his predecessor is admittedly the owner of the property in an alleged fraudulent instrument, no declaration of title is required to challenge it.
- Under section 28 of the Registration Act, 1908, a document affecting immovable property must be registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar within whose sub-district the property is situated; registration elsewhere without the District Registrar's sanction contravenes that requirement.
- A deed without evidence of due registration cannot be relied upon, and such registration does not itself create any evidence of execution.
- Where a donor executed an earlier deed by thumb impression but the disputed deed bears his signature, the inconsistency shifts the burden to the defendant to prove execution, and expert opinion is not necessary.
- In revision under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the High Court Division does not act as a second appellate court and will not disturb concurrent findings of fact absent jurisdictional error, illegality, perversity or misreading of evidence.
in the case of a fraudulent instrument, no declaration of title is required where the plaintiff or his predecessor is admittedly the owner of the property included in the alleged instrument
