High Court Division · Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
Farid Ahmed (deceased) by his heirs Saleha Begum and others v Abdur Rop @ Rouf and others
First Appeal 290/2014 · Appeal allowed; suit remanded for retrial · Decided 1 September 2026
The plaintiffs sued in Title Suit No. 154 of 2007 for a declaration of title to 20 decimals of land, claiming through registered kabala deeds of 1953 to 1958 and a 1991 deed from Miah Ullah, and alleging that S.A. Khatian No. 69 wrongly recorded the land in the names of Pana Ullah and others. Defendant Nos. 29 and 30 claimed through the recorded owners. The Additional Joint District Judge, Sylhet dismissed the suit on 31.03.2014. On appeal, both sides sought remand. The High Court Division found that the earlier deeds conveyed land in Mouja Hiaboran while the 1991 deed and the suit concerned Mouja Bagbari, that the plaint mentioned a renaming only in passing, that no evidence proved it, and that the Advocate Commissioner's report did not address it. The defendants had also not examined witnesses to support their claim. The Court set aside the decree and remanded the suit for retrial, allowing amendment of pleadings and further evidence, to be concluded within six months.
- Whether the plaintiffs proved title to 20 decimals of land in Mouja Bagbari when their predecessors' title deeds described land in Mouja Hiaboran.
- Whether the suit should be remanded for retrial with leave to both parties to amend their pleadings and adduce further evidence.
- Where the predecessors' title deeds describe land in one mouja and the plaintiffs' deed describes land in another, the plaintiffs must prove by legal evidence that the mouja was renamed or divided.
- Claims of the plaintiffs that are not admitted by the defendants, such as original ownership of the land through the taluk and Mazid Ullah, must be proved by legal evidence.
- The Advocate Commissioner's report that the old deeds attracted the disputed land did not address the change of the mouja name.
- As both sides had left material claims unproved, the ends of justice required the decree to be set aside and the suit remanded for retrial with leave to amend pleadings and adduce further evidence.
- The trial court was directed to conclude the retrial within six months of receiving the order.
we hold that the ends of justice will be met if the impugned judgment and decree is set aside and above suit is remanded for retrial after giving both the parties an opportunity to amend their respective pleadings and adduce further evidence.
