It appears that a vast tract of land within the reserved forest has been claimed by Abbas Ali Munshi as he plaintiff in Title Suit No. 160 of 1966 on the basis of taking pattan from the ex-landlord in the year 1946. But in that suit he could not produce any supporting evidence of title as claimed. Moreover, in view of the statement made in the plaint that the suit land has been recorded as forest land, the trial court committed an error of law in decreeing the suit, mechanically ex parte without considering the effect of the provisions of the S.A.T. Act, as well as the Specific Relief Act.
Bangladesh Vs. Karimun Nessa & Ors. 9BLT(AD)-242
The historical background of the legislation as mentioned in P.O. 88 of 1972 in respect of subsisting usufructuary mortgage is hit by Section 95A of the State Acquisition and Tenancy Act which is meant to protect the helpless raiyat. A raiyat in Bangladesh cannot enter into any form of usufructuary mortgage other than complete usufructuary mortgage which is capable of enjoyment for a maximum period of 7 years and the raiyat will get back his property under Section 95 of EBSAT Act.
Asmat Ali Vs. Abdur Rafique Mridha & Ors. 9 BLT(AD)-7
In the instant case two sale deeds being Exts. 4 and 5 are registered sale deeds of the year 1968 when section 95A of the State Acquisition and Tenancy Act was not born even.These two registerd deeds of out and out sale without any condition shall prevail over other oral evidence and this cannot be constructed in any manner whatsoever as an out and out sale with an agreement of reconveyance, so the question of invoking section 95A of the state Aeuisition and Tenancy Act does not arises at all.
Hazi Nur Mohammad Sarker & Ors. Vs. Kashem Mollah 8 BLT (HCD)-72
The deed of sale was executed on 18.12.1969 and the Ekrarnama was also executed and registered on the same date being 18.12.1969 stipulating terms and conditions that after 7 years he would get back his property. The transaction was alive and subsisting on the date of promulgation of P.O. 88 of 1972 i.e. oil 03.08.1972.
Md. Abdul Karim Khan Vs. Md. Abdul Hamid Gayeen & Ors. 9BLT(HCD)-260
Instant case, the contest is between the pre-emptor and the pre-emptee as to whether the kabala in question was a sale or an ewa/ The pre emptor was not a party to the document. She is perfectly at liberty to question the nature of the transaction and the pre-emption court has full jurisdiction to entertain the pre-emptie’s challenge.
Tambia Khatun Vs. Rafiqullah 8BLT(AD)-230
It is admitted by the parties that no notice about the transfer was ever served upon the pre-emptor-petitioner-the learned Subordinate Judge came to the finding that the petitioner pre-emptor knew about the transfer as he belonged to the same family—Held: The learned Subordinate Judge however did not consider or discuss as to any notice was at all served upon the petitioner or not and further more he came to the wrong finding that as he being one of the member of the family, he also knew about the transfer, this finding is absolutely wrong and is not sustainable in law.
Nasiruddin Ahmed Vs. Abdul Majid Howlader 8BLT (HCD)-322
Section-96 and 117
Unless it is eatablished that the parent jama has been duly separated on proper service of notice upon all the co-shares a co-sharer to it his right of pre-emption subsists.
Md. Tofazzal Hossain & Ors. Vs. Motaj Begum & Ors. 8BLT(HCD)-85
Both the courts below having found that the original pre-emptor became a co-sharer in the holding on the basis of a deed of gift High Court Division committed no illegality in holding that he was not a co-sharer by inheritance. Present petitioners are not pre-emptor but they are merely representatives of the pre-emptor and as such there is no scope to hold that they were co-sharers by inheritance at the time of filing the case for pre-emption. Subsequent becoming of their co-shares by inheritance during pendency of the case cannot alter the character and status of the original pre-emptor.
Khorshed Alam & Ors. Vs. Abdur Rob & Ors. 9BLT(AD)-34
Pecuniary jurisdiction—for pre-emption-actual value of the land—whatever might be the actual price of the land, the amount stated in the deed o sale as consideration shall have to be taken as the valuation of the proceeding for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction.
Most. Sajeda Khatoon Vs. Asad Ali & Ors. 9BLT(HCD)-267.
Pre-emption —subsequent re conveyance not defeat pre-emption
Sale of a properly takes effect from the date of the execution of the sale deed and as such any subsequent ageement for re-conveyance of the property cannot defeat the right of preemption
Captain Mohd. Lutfar Rahman Vs. Mohd. Abu Taher & Ors. 9BLT (HCD)-429
Section -96(3)(a) read with Evidence Act, 1872 [1 of 1872]
Pecuniary jurisdiction — for pre-emption — actual value of the land — whatever might be the actual price of the land, the amount stated in the deed of sale as consideration shall have to be taken as the valuation of the proceeding for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction.
Most. Sajeda Khatoon Vs. Asad Ali & Ors. 9BLT(HCD)-267
Waiver and Acquiescence Held; In our view High Court Division has correctly held in the light of the observation in a case reported in 44 DLR (AD) 62, said expressing of inability cannot be considered waiver and acquiescence on the part of the pre-emptor and tffat his right of pre-emption cannot be denied while the same has been sought to be enforced within time and that otherwise not incompetent in law and fact,.
Kohinoor Hamid Vs. Abdul Khaleque &Ors. (AD)-172
Co-sharer in the joint tenancy
The property was originally owned and possessed by Golam Mortu/a Khan. After his death the petitioner and his three brothers and six sisters inherited. They are living separately —Mutatiion of the Dhaka Municipal Corporation to be valid must be based on an order in writing of the Revenue officer concerned making the joint tenancy subdivided and rents distributed. It cannot be other way round. Separate holding number given by a Municipal Corporation cannot replace an order under Section I 17 (c) of the State \ Acquisition and Tenancy Act. so the heirs of Golam Mortuza Khan must be held to be still enjoying the joint tenancy left by him. Similarly no amicable partition among the cosharers even if reached in writing nor even a decree passed in a partition suit allotting different shares to the co-shares can substitute the order as mentioned in Section 117(c) of the State Acquisition and Tenacity Act. In such view of the legal position as well as the factual position, the court of appeal below was perfectly justified in holding that the joint tenancy of Golam Murtoza khan was never subdivided and the rents were never distributed amongst his heirs, pre-emptor and his brothers and sisters in accordance with law, and thereby the pre-emptor did not cease to be a co sharer in the joint tenancy left by him.
Harunur Rashid Vs. Afroza Klumam & Ors. 9BLT(HCD)-135
Both the courts below having found that the original pre-emptor became a co-sharer in the holding on the basis of a deed of gift High Court Division committed no illegality in holding that he was not a co-sharer by inheritance. Present petitioners are not pre-emptors but they are merely legal representatives of the pre-emptor and as such there is not scope to hold that they were co-sharers by in heritance at the time of filing the ease for pre-emption. Subsequent becoming of their co-sharers by inheritance during pendency of the case cannot alter the character and status of the original pre-emptor.
Khorshed Alam & Ors. Vs. Abdur Rob & Ors. 9BLT(AD)-34
Bona fide requirement The right of bona tide requirement is always with landlord but he is under legal obligation to prove that he needs the premises for such requirement. Expansion of existing business of a landlord run in a shop room adjacent to the shop room let out to a tenant involves element of must have and constitutes bonafide requirement.
Zaher Ahmed Vs. Manik Sarker 9BLT(AD)-23
The right of bona fide requirement is always with landlord but he is under legal obligation to prove that he needs the premises for such requirement. Expansion of existing business of a landlord run in a shop room adjacent to the shop room let out to a tenant involves element of must have and constitutes bona fide requirement.
Zaher Ahmed Vs. Manik Sarder 9BLT(AD)-69
Specific Performance of Contract
In a suit for specific performance of contract, a decree cannot be passed to oust the persons from their homestead if there is possibility that they shall have to go to the street leaving their paternal property.
Biplob Chandra Das & Anr. Vs. Biren Chandra das & Ors. 8BLT (HCD)-370