REGISTRATION ACT, 1908 (XVI OF 1908)
Relinquishment—Whether oral agreement
to relinquish right in immovable property valid—Relinquishment of interest
amounting to transfer of absolute interest in immovable property cannot be
effected without a registered instrument if the value of the property exceeds
Golam Au Molla Vs.Khondakar Abdul Mazid and others, 4BLD (HCD)157
Transfer of partners interest—Whether
registered document necessary to transfer the interest of a partner in
immovable property of a partnership—The interest of a partner in partnership
assets in movable property though the assets includes immovable property?— The
transfer of interest of a partner in partnership firm can be effected by
registered document under the provisions of the Registration Act when the firm
is possessed of immovable property as the transfer operates to create an
interest in immovable property does not appear to be a sound law—Registration
of such document for conveying share in partnership in immovable property is
Ying Ping Vs. Leon Fang Ai, 5 BLD (AD) 24
A.I.R. 1966(SC)1300; 20 DLR 1056; I.L.R. 17 Bombay 235; A.I.R. 1947 Lahore I
Sections—17(2)(VI) and 50
Registration of compromise decree—
Compromise decree when exempt from registration—If the compromise deals with
suit properties then the decree on such compromise is exempt from registration
but if the compromise relates to properties which are not subject-matter of the
suit, in such case the decree is not exempt from registration— If the
compromise has been acted upon or is covered by the decree then it is a settled
law that compromise is exempt from registration.
All Sardar and others Vs. Taser All Fakir and another, SBLD(AD)260
A.I.R. 1919 (PC)79—Cited.
Compromise decree—Such decree creating
interest in immovable property, which is subject matter of the suit, whether
requires to be registered ‘?—Compromise decree in respect of immovable property
which is subject matter of the suit creating or transferring interest therein
does not require registration— The respondents have no locus standi to
challenge the compromise decree when they had no interest in the subject matter
of the suit.
Parul Kusum Roy Vs. Bangladesh and others, 8BLD (HCD) 6.
Sections—17(1)(b) and 49
Award in respect of property—Question
of registration—The alleged award is a non-testamentary instrument which
operates to create right, title or interest valued above Tk. 100/- in immovable
property—The award relating to such property having not been registered it is
not enforceable in law.
Jun Talukder and another Vs. Ching Neshay Magni and others, 9BLD (HCD) 10
17 DLR (Dhaka) 649—Cited.
Validity of registration—Question of
protection of third party’s title—The vendor and vendee of Ext. A are precluded
from questioning the validity of registration on the ground that the property
did not exist or was fictitious or insignificant or was not intended to be
conveyed and the registration was invalid.
Kawsar Au Vs. Gahar Kazi and others, 5BLD (AD) 289
41 l.A. 110; 41 All 22; 16 l.A. 12; 39 C.W.N. 120; 55 Mad. 507; A.I.R. 1954
Bombay 54; PLD 1957 Dhaka 165; 61 l.A. 286; 16l.A. 112; A.LR. 1925 Mad. 430;
I.L.R. 1914 (Cal)972; 48 l.A. 127;—Cited.
Sections—32 and 33
Power of attorney—its registration—
Contention that a power of attorney empowering a person to execute a deed of
transfer of immovable property requires registration is not tenable as a power
of attorney executed in terms of Registration Act or under other provisions of
law which confers a valid power on the attorney to act as an agent for the
principal does not require registration except that its authentication under
the law is necessary.
and others Vs. Babar Au Bepari and others, 1BLD (AD) 85
Sections—32 and 33
Power of Attorney—Power of attorney
executed and authenticated by a Magistrate or Notary Public in a foreign
country—Whether could be acted upon as a valid document in Bangladesh?
notarial act is done in a foreign country by a foreign notary and there is
reciprocal arrangement between Bangladesh and that foreign country, then by
reference to S. 14 of Notaries Ordinance and S. 33 of the Registration Act,
those notarial acts will be valid and the power of attorney admissible in
there is no reciprocal arrangement the question is whether by reference to S.
14 of the Notaries Ordinance, 1961 it could be said that foreign notarial act
will not be recognised as a valid act or document. A reading of S. 14 does not
indicate any such prohibition or exclusion. Notarial act in a foreign country
having no reciprocal arrangement can be accepted into evidence if there is evidence
to show that the person before whom the notarial act was done was a Notary
Public and that the state in which the notarial act was done authorised him by
law to do the notarial acts. If a notarial act takes place in a foreign
country, the person asking the Court to accept the notarial acts done in a
foreign country can do so by showing that the law of that country authorised
notarial acts to be done by Notaries as they are so done in Bangladesh and by
proving the authentication made by the Notary Public.
power of attorney authenticated by a Magistrate in India will be admissible if
it is proved that the Magistrate by law and practice having the force of law in
India is authorised to authenticate power of attorney and that it was duly
authenticated by the Magistrate.
and others Vs. Babar Au Bepari and others, 1BLD (AD) 86
16 Cal 776; 25 Ch. D. 769; PLD 1969 (SC) 477; A.I.R. 1958(Andra Pradesh) 107
Sections—32 to 35
Registration of document on the basis of
power of attorney—If the Sub-Registrar is satisfied and presentation is
accepted by him and he registers the document it is prima facie evidence that
the conditions have been satisfied—There is presumption in law that official
acts are regularly performed—There is an initial presumption that the document
was duly presented and the person presenting was duly authorised—Once the
plaintiff admits the endorsement in the document the burden shifts on the
defendant to prove that the power of attorney was forged.
Arshad Ali Vs. Abed Au and others, 4BLD (HCD) 150
A.LR. l922 (P.C.)279; AIR. 1934 (Lah) 452—Cited.
Sections— 47 and 60
Documents of successive transfers— Dispute
as to precedence of one document over the other—Whether the document
registered earlier in point of time will prevail over the other ?—A document
that has been registered relates back to the date of its execution and the
question of title as between the two contestants claiming on the basis of
successive documents executed by the selfsame vendor must be determined with
reference to the title to the latter on the date of execution and not of
registration.Mir Abdul Ali Vs. Md. Rafiqul Islam, 8BLD (AD) 73 and 149
9 DLR 258; 15 DLR 77: A.I.R. 1941 Pat 247—Cited.
Sections—47 and 60
Accrual of right of Pre-emption—Long
line of decisions of the erstwhile Dhaka High Court has followed the principle
that the date of accrual of the right of pre-emption is not the date of
execution of the sale deed but the date of registration under section 60 of the
Motalib Vs. Imam Ali Mollah and others. 10BLD (AD) 160: 42DLRC4D) 123
13 DLR889: 17 DLR 365; 17 DLR 231; 20 DLR 355; 21 DLR599; 31 I)LR(AD)1 18; 34
DLR (AD) 220: 2 BCR (AD)87:—Cited.
Fraudulent operations of vendor—Section
47 of the Registration Act is designed to protect a vendee from the fraudulent
operations of a vendor—This section applies when the same vendor successively
transfers the same property to different purchasers at different times,
Motalib Vs. Imam Ali Mollah, 10BLD (AD) 160: 42DLR (AD) 123
9 DLR 258: 21 DLR 599: 40 DLR(AD)75. —Cited.
Which document prevails—When the same vendor
executes and registers two sale deeds in respect of the same land in favour of
two different purchasers on two different dates section 47 of the Act settles
which one will prevail over the other. The sale-deed which was executed earlier
but registered later in point of time will prevail over the other. The sale
deed which was executed earlier but registered later in point of time and the
criterion in such cases for the purpose of determining when the sale takes
effect is not the date of registration hut the date of execution of the sale
Raiqu1 Islam Vs. Mir Abdul All, l2BLD (AD) 77
9 DLR258: 15 DLR77 (F.B.t— Cited.
Unregistered deed of sale—Its
evidentiary value in a suit for specific performance of contract—The
unregistered deed of sale Ext. I has been admitted into evidence not as an
evidence of title to the suit land but for a collateral purpose namely to prove
the existence of an agreement for sale for the purpose of specific performance
of contract—As such it cannot be treated as a substantive piece of document. It
is only admissible to prove the existence of an agreement and not beyond that.
Hossain and others Vs. Md. Jabed Ali, 4BLD (HCD) 215.
of pre-emption accrues on the date of registration—Stare decisis—An established
precedent handed by past Judges.
Motalib Vs. Imam Ali Mollah and others, 10BLD (AD) 160: 42 DLR (AD) 123
Registration of deed—Arbitrary and
illegal refusal to register the deed presented with in the time—Registration
authority wrongly refusing to register the deed the appellant should not be
penalised for delay caused when there was no default on the art of the
deed executed on 20.12.1971 was presented for registration on 27.3.1972.
District Registrar refused registration without assignh’ g any reason.
Appellant filed O.C. Suit No. 101 of 1972 under section 77 of the Registration
Act and got decree on 31.12. 1973. The deed with copy of decree was presented
for registration on 29.1.1974. Deed reciuired with endorsement that an
affidavit was required. Appellant submitted application for permission but the
prayer for registration was refused.
directed presentation of the deed for registration within 30 days from the
Sajjad Au Vs. inspector General, Registration and others. 3BLD (AD)58
Suit for registration of document—
Scope of the suit against refusal of registration by the Registrar—It is well
settled that in such a suit the Court is only concerned whether the document is
executed by the person by whom it is alleged to have been executed and not its
validity—The question of its validity must be determined in a suit properly
framed for that purpose—The Court will not go to deal with the question that
the deed is void for want of consideration or that it was obtained by fraud.
Moshahaq Au and others Vs. Rabeya Khatuii and another, 6BLD (AD) 178
8DLR 648: A.I.R. 1932 Cal 588; AIR. 1921 Lahore 136; 14 C.W.N. 12; 17 DLR