High Court Division · Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
Mohammad Hanif (by heirs Rubaiyat Hanif and others) v Government of Bangladesh and others
First Appeal (TN) 311/2016 · Appeal allowed; suit remanded for retrial · Decided 25 August 2026
The plaintiffs sued the Government in Title Suit No. 247 of 2012 for declaration of title to land in Dhaka and a declaration that City Survey Khatian No. 1 in the Government's name was erroneous. They claimed that the land, acquired by the Government for a Dhaka Municipality drainage project, was auction sold by the Municipality as surplus to their predecessors in interest and conveyed to them by registered deeds in 1984. The defendants filed a written statement but led no evidence and cross-examined only one witness in part. The Joint District Judge, 1st Court, Dhaka dismissed the suit. On appeal, the plaintiffs sought to amend the plaint to include all the land purchased and to adduce further evidence, and the Additional Attorney General conceded the defendants' written statement was incomplete. The High Court Division set aside the decree and remanded the suit for retrial, allowing both parties to amend their pleadings and adduce evidence, with disposal directed within six months.
- Whether the trial court's dismissal of a suit for declaration of title and of an erroneous City Survey khatian should stand where the pleadings and evidence of both sides were incomplete.
- Whether the suit should be remanded for retrial with liberty to both parties to amend their pleadings and adduce further evidence.
- Since the plaintiffs admitted that the land was acquired by the Government and auction sold by Dhaka Municipality to their predecessor, they were not required to establish the title of the C.S. recorded tenants.
- As the R.S. khatian of the land stood in the names of the plaintiffs' predecessors, the defendants were required to state the basis of the City Survey khatian recorded in their names.
- Where the plaint omitted part of the land claimed and the defendants' written statement was incomplete and they had led no evidence, the ends of justice required a retrial with liberty to both sides to amend their pleadings and adduce further evidence.
- The trial court was directed to dispose of the remanded suit 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 to the trial Court for retrial after giving both parties an opportunity to amend their respective pleadings and adduce further evidence.
