High Court Division
Aradhan Mandol and others v Dhananjoy Sarker and others
First Appeal 171/2017 · Appeal allowed; decree set aside · Decided 6 September 2026
The plaintiffs sued in Title Suit No. 459 of 2012 for a declaration of title and correction of the S.A. and R.S. records, claiming through a gift deed No. 1883 dated 10.03.1927 made by the C.S. recorded owners to their grandfather. Defendant Nos. 1 to 3, heirs of a recorded owner, filed written statements but examined no witnesses. The Joint District Judge, 2nd Court, Manikgonj decreed the suit on 27.02.2017 and the defendants appealed. The High Court Division found no clear evidence of the plaintiffs' title. The certified copy of the gift deed was obtained in 2016, after the suit was filed, and the deed did not mention acceptance or delivery of possession. No rent receipts, revenue records or mutation papers were produced, the witnesses were inconsistent about the land, no deed of exchange was produced, and the exhibited khatians stood in the names of the defendants' predecessors. Holding that a plaintiff must succeed on his own case, the Court allowed the appeal and set aside the decree.
- Whether the plaintiffs proved title to the suit land under a gift deed of 1927 so as to obtain a declaration of title and correction of the S.A. and R.S. records.
- Whether a suit for declaration of title can be decreed because the defendants examined no witnesses.
- The three primary conditions of a deed of gift are offer, acceptance and transfer of possession, and the deed relied on contained no clear mention of acceptance or delivery of possession.
- In a suit for declaration of title the plaintiff must prove his own case and cannot obtain a decree on the weakness of the defendant's case or the defendant's failure to examine witnesses.
- A plaintiff cannot establish title or long-term possession without producing rent receipts, revenue records or other tangible documentary evidence; oral claims alone are generally insufficient.
- A failure to produce any deed of exchange where ownership is claimed through ewaj-badal is generally fatal to the claim.
- Inconsistent evidence of the witnesses about the quantity of land in possession created doubt about the plaintiffs' case, and the trial court's finding was contrary to the evidence on record.
The proposition of law is by now fairly well settled that the plaintiff in order to succeed must establish his own case to obtain a decree and weakness of the defendant’s case is no ground for passing a decree in favour of the plaintiff
