President’s Order No. 135 of 1972

The provisions of P.O. 135 of 1972 take effect only with respect to the lands which reappeared after Part-V of the S.A. and T. Act, 1950, came into force in the locality. The suit land alleged to have accreted prior to the date when the provisions P.O. 135 of 1972 became operative in the locality, the trial Court ought to have decided this question on evidence. The case is sent back to the trial Court for fresh hearing after taking evidence

Abdul Aziz Bepari and Others Vs. Govt of Bangladesh and others, 14 BLD (HCD)225

Ref: 31 D.L.R. (AD) 195-Cited. 

Section—2(13), 96(1)

After State Acquisition and Tenancy Act came in 1950 the owners and possessors of all kinds of lands have become direct tenants under the Government. The pre-emptor is being a co-sharer and the purchaser being stranger, case land being part of a holding that is portion of a compact land, although there is no khatian number or plot number of the transferred land, it constitutes part of an agricultural holding according to section 96(1) and section 2(13) of the State Acquisition and Tenancy Act and as such the pre-emption in the instant case is to be allowed.

Abdul Jabbar and others Vs Mohammad Sekandar and others, 19 BLD (HCD) 83. 

Sections—43(2) and 72

Once notification under sub-section (2) of section 43 of the Act is published in the official gazette, such notification is conclusive proof of such publication and of the date thereof and section 72 of the Act bars a civil Court from entertaining any suit in respect of the preparation, signing and publication of a Compensation Assessment Roll or any Part thereof under Chapter V or Chapter VA of the Act.

Bangladesh represented by the Secretary Ministry of L.A. and LR Vs Chowdhury Tanbir Ahmed Siddiky, 17 BLD (AD) 131.

Ref: (1959)11 DLR (SC) 318; (1968) 20 DLR(SC) 144; 33 DLR (AD)13-Cited.


Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1949, Sections—85(2) and 24

The object of section 85(2) of the Non Agricultural Tenancy Act was to retain control over non-agricultural land held by a tenant under the Government unencumbered by the provisions of the Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act. Section 8 1A(2) of the State Acquisition and Tenancy Act determines the rights and liabilities of non-agricultural tenants other than those who have become tenants under the Government by virtue of compulsory acquisition of land . The Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act has not been mentioned to be a governing law in respect of such tenants of nonagricultural land under the Government. Hence, on both accounts, under section 85(2) of the Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act and section 81A(2) of the State Acquisition and Tenancy Act, the ouster of the Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act from the categories mentioned therein is complete. Section 24 of the Nonagricultural and Tenancy Act has no manner of application to lands of Dhanmondi Residential Area.

Md. Mosaddeque Hossain Vs. Dr. Esmat Mirza and others, 18 BLD (AD) 57.

Ref: 17 DLR384; 7 DLR 116; 33DLR 10—Cited.

Sections—86(2)(3) and 87

When the reformation of a diluviated land was complete before the date of coming into force of Part V of the Act, provisions of amended sub-section (3) of section 86 will not be applicable in respect of the said land. In such a case, the right of the tenant will not be extinguished or destroyed for the suit land going under water for some time before the coming into operation of this amended provision of law. Similarly, accretion which took place before coming into force of Part V of the Act shall be beyond the scope of subsections (1) (2) of Section 87 of the Act and the rights of the owner shall remain unaffected.

Hajee Fayez Ahmed Vs. Shafiul Alam and another, 15 BLD (HCD) 524.

Ref: Abdul Mannan and ors. Vs. Kulada Ranjan Mowali and ors, 31 DLR(AD)195; Padmabati Biswas Vs. Bangladesh and others, 44 DLR 465; Lopez Vs. Muddun Mohan Thakur, 13 MI. A. 467 (PC); Rai Kiran Chandra Roy Bahadur and ors. Vs. Tarak Nath Gango Padhyay and others, 40C.W.N page 22 and 566—Cited.

Sections—95 and 51A

President’s Order Nos 88 and 136 of 1972

President’s Order No. 24 of 1973

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908(V of 1908), Order 34

P.O. 88 of 1972 created special forum for restoration of mortgaged property. But it did not take away right of redemption available to a mortgagor by filing a mortgage suit under Order 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

In that view of the matter High Court Division was totally wrong to held that the suit was not maintainable as the transaction was past and closed. [Per Latifur Rahman, C.J; (delivering the majority judgment].

Asmat Ali Vs Abdur Rafique Mridha and others, 20 BLD (AD) 197.

Ref: Bangladesh Vs. Haji Abdul Gani Biswas and ors, 32 DLR(AD)233—Cited

Sections—95 and 95A

The plaintiff himself admitted the existence of a separate deed of reconveyance which was not been produced before any of the courts below which escaped the notice of the trial court as well as of the appellate court and there is also no consideration of the circumstances as regards the prevalent price of such lands at the relevant time which would have indicated the nature of the questioned document. The trial court as well as the appellate court has therefore wrongly decreed the suit. [Per Mahmudul Amin Choudhury, J (dissenting)]

Asmat Ali Vs Abdur Rafique Mridha and others, 20 BLD (AD) 197. 

Section—95 A

Treatment of certain transaction as Usufructuary Mortgage

To attract the application of Section 95A of the Act the transaction in question must be a subsisting one on the date of promulgation of President’s Order No. 88 of 1972 on 3.8. 1972. Transactions which were not alive on that date are to be treated as transactions past and closed.

In the present case, admittedly the mortgage was for 4 years which expired long before 3.8.1972 and as such Section 95A of the Act will have no application to such a transaction which was past and closed.

Abdul Khaleque Sarnamat Vs. Abdul Khaleque Sarnamat 16 BLD (AD) 210.

Ref: Bangladesh Vs. Haji Abdul Gani Biswas, 32 BLD(AD)233; Abu Bakkar Vs. Nazir Ahmed, 34DLR(AD)237 — Cited


The clear legislative intent of section 95A is that cases of sale attended with agreement for reconveyance whether registered or unregistered would come within the ambit of complete Usufructuary mortgage for a period of 7 years and provisions of section 95(4) (5) would apply to such transfer. A contrary view would clearly make the provisions of section 95A nugatory and frustrate its purpose.

The view taken by the High Court Division that an agreement for reconveyance with a deed of sale as contemplated under section 95A of the Act is not required to be compulsorily registered as required under section 95(2) of the Act has been affirmed by the Appellate Division.

Abdus Salam Sheikh Vs. Puspa Rani Shil, 16 BLD (AD) 299.

Ref: Bangladesh Vs. Abdul Gani, 32 DLR(AD)233—Cited.


The transfer of a holding by way of out and out sale, followed by a simultaneous agreement to recovery the land to the vendor, is to be deemed to be a complete Usufructuary mortgage under the provision of Section 95A of the Act.

Sree Kamada Ranjan Bhattachargee Vs Kohinur Chowdhury and others, 17 BLD (HCD)460 


The plaintiff transferred .54 acre of agricultural land to the defendant by a kabala executed on 10.7.1949 and the transferee executed an Ekramama on 13.7.1949 and both the documents were registered on 7.11.1949. In terms of the Ekrarnama the transferee agreed to reconvey the land to the transferor if consideration money was paid back within 6 years. In such circumstances, the transfer in question must be held to be a complete usufructuary mortgage although the transaction took place before the commencement of the Second Amendment of the Act.

Md. Rajiuddin Chowdhury Vs. Suruj Au, 16 BLD (HCD) 96. 

Section— 95A

The expression “either by way of an out and out sale with an agreement to reconvy” as used in Section 95A of the S.A.T. Act indicates that the deed of reconveyance is required to be registered and it must be a contemporaneous document along with the document of transfer of land by way of out and out sale. In order to obtain the benefit under this beneficial legislation the party who seeks to obtain the benefit must strictly satisfy the authority that he has complied with the requirements of law.

Rup Charan Das Vs. Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh. 16 BLD (HCD)419

Ref: 8BLD(AD)84 — Cited. 


Section 95A of the S.A.T. Act is in Part V of the Act and it came into operation in the District of Chittagong on 1st August, 1963 and as such the provisions of section 95A of the Act cannot be pushed beyond 1.8.1963 as no retrospectivity was given to it . The disputed transaction is dated 13.12.1949 and even if it is taken to be a complete Usufructuary mortgage, still then it cannot be redeemed under section 95A of the State Acquisition and Tenancy Act, the transaction being a past and closed one after the lapse of 7 years.

Nurul Islam Chowdhury and another Vs. Upazila Revenue Officer, Patia, Chittagong and others, 16 BLD (HCD) 31.

Ref: 31 DLR (AD) 195; 34DLR (AD) 237—Cited.


An unregistered agreement for reconveyance is enforceable in law and the provision for registration of such an agreement as required under Section 95 (2)(3) of the Act does not bar the enforcement of such an agreement.

Osman Gani Talukder alias Sujat Au Talukder Vs. Md. Osman All Mondal, 16 BLD (HCD) 165

Ref: 47 DLR 67; 28 DLR221; 24 DLR 42.


Waiver and acquiescence defeat the right of pre-emption

When the pre-emptor took a leading part in bringing about the transaction by assisting the sellers in selling the land and encouraged the buyers in purchasing it and himself negotiated the price, the conduct of the pre-emptor is sufficient to give rise to waiver and acquiescence and as such estoppel operates against him.

Akhlasur Rahman & ors. Vs. Safurullah and others, 14 BLD (AD) 20.

Ref: 42 IA 10(18), (1955) ISCR 70; 38 DLR (1986) 361; 22 DLR(1970) 449; 18 DLR(SC)( 1966)364—Cited.


Acquiescence, when arises

Right of Pre-emption accrues after the transfer of the land and this statutory right cannot be taken away by mere verbal assurance of the person having such right unless a clear case of waiver and acquiescence is made out on evidence.

Fazaruddin Vs. Maijuddin and others, 14 BLD(AD) 29.


Objection about defect of parties must be taken at the earliest stage and it cannot be entertained at the Appellate stage.

Mosammat Saleha Bibi Vs. Taib Ali Mollah and others, 13 BLD (HCD) 677.

Ref: 41 DLR(AD)124; 41DLR, 336; 31 DLR(AD)88; 1983 BLD(AD), 105; 21 DLR (SC) 145-Cited.


A finding of fact in respect of the preemptors date of knowledge about the impugned transfer arrived at by the lower Appellate Court on assessment of evidence and the same having been affirmed by the High Court Division, the Appellate Division found no justification for interference.

Amena Khatun Vs. Abdul Motaleb and Others, 14 BLD (AD) 68. 


When the application for pre-emption was made in time subsequent amendment for impleading necessary parties after the expiry of the period of limitation is permissible in law. Besides making all the co-sharers of the transferred holding as parties, the petitioner claiming pre-emption as a contiguous land-holder is required to make all the tenants holding lands contiguous to the case land parties in the case

Most. Khodeza Begum Vs. Md. Illias Mia and others, 14 BLD (HCD) 388.


Since the result of the Title Suit shall govern the result of the Preemption Case it is expedient that the suit and the Pre-emption Case be heard simultaneously

Shanti Ranjan Baroi and another Vs. Sri Jogesh Baroi and another, 14 BLD (HCD) 121.

Ref: M/S Ayet Ali Bhuiyan and Company Ltd. Vs. Janata Bank, 40 DLR 56 and Bangladesh Shilpa Bank Vs. Bangladesh Hotels Ltd, 38 DLR (AD)70-Cited.


Section 96 of the State Acquisition and Tenancy Act is a beneficial legislation, intended for the convenience of the co-sharers of a holding land contiguous to the land transferred. But it is also cloglon transfer of property.

Any provision of law barring claim of pre-emption must be strictly construed.

Golchera Khatun being dead her heirs: Akhtar Hossain and others Vs. Musammat Sayera Khatun, 13 BLD (AD) 41.


Pre-emption—Subsequent re-conveyance not to defeat pre-emption

Acquisition of title takes effect from the date of execution of the sale deed and not from the date of its registration. With the sale the vendor loses all his interests in the property and he is left with no interest therein to encumber the sale by a subsequent agreement for re-conveyance. A colourable reconveyance cannot defeat the right of pre-emption.

Captain Mohd Lutfar Rahman Vs Mohd Abu Taher and others, 21 BLD (HCD) 334.

Ref: Abul Hossain and ors. Vs. Md. Nasim Ali and ors, 19DLR677; Md. Sukur Ali Vs. Sree Suresh Chandra Barmon and Ors, 4BLD219; Khorshed Ali and ano. Vs. Aftauddin and ors. 47DLR607; Shafi Khan Vs.Mannujan Hossain and ors., 35 DLR (AD) 225—Cited.

Sub—section 10(C) of Section 96

Sub-section 10(c) of Section 96 of the S.A.T. Act restricts the right of pre-emption by providing that when a portion or share of a holding is transferred by gift by the husband to the wife and vice versa or if the donee is a relation of the donor by consanguinity within three degrees, such a transfer is not pre emptible. Sub-section 10(c) of Section 96 clearly indicates that it has not been designed to help the donor or donee to curtail the right of pre-emption of a co-sharer of a holding where his right of pre-emption has already arisen prior to such gift. In the instant case, the vendor of the case land did not transfer his land by way of gift to his wife but he transferred the case land to opposite part No.1 by a registered kabala. Opposite party No. 1, intern, gifted the case land to opposite party No. 85. Under such circumstances, the preemption case against opposite party No. 1 is quite maintainable in law as the latter could not pass a better title to opposite party No. 85 than what he had acquired by kabala from his vendor. Opposite party No. 85 acquired title in the case land subject to the pre-emptors already accrued right of pre-emption.

Mohammad Tayeb Vs. Haji Najir Ahmed and others, 16 BLD (HCD) 173.

Ref. 35 DLR (1983)238—Cited


Reconveyance made during the pendency of pre-emption proceeding cannot take away the right of a pre-emption of the co-sharer.

Khorshed Ali and another Vs. Aftabuddin and others, 16 BLD (HCD) 1. 


When the pre-emptor took a leading part in bringing about the transaction by assisting the sellers in selling the land and encouraged the buyers in purchasing it and himself negotiated the price, the conduct of the pre-emptor is sufficient to give rise to waiver and acquiescence and as such estoppel operates against him. (Per A.M. Mahmudur Rahman, I, delivering the majority judgment)

Most Rokeya Begum Vs Md Abu Zaher and others, 20 BLD(AD) 90

Ref: Akhlasur Rahman and ors Vs. Safurullah and ors, I4BLD(1994)(AD)20—relied.


There is absolutely no evidence from the side of the preemptee that there was an offer to the preemptor and refusal of the same by him or that he himself negotiated the transaction. The High Court Division without considering the facts and circumstances relying up-on I4BLD(AD)20 and 44DLR(AD)62 wrongly applied the principle in the instant case. [Per Mahmudul Amin Chowdhury, (dissenting)]

Most Rokeya Begum Vs Md Abu Zaher and others, 20 BLD (AD) 90. 


Mere knowledge or proposal for transfer is not sufficient to defeat the right of the preemptor which accrues after the sale is affected. [Per Mahmudul Amin Chowdhury, J. (dissenting)1

Most Rokeya Begum Vs Md Abu Zaher and others, 20 BLD(AD) 90


Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order I Rule 10

Pre-emption Proceeding—Necessary parties

In a pre-emption proceeding the necessary parties may be added at any point of time after institution of the suit but before hearing of the same.

Nizam Sheikh and others Vs Alauddin Sheikh and others, 19 BLD(HCD)197

Ref: 14 DLR2O4, 33 DLR(AD)1 13, 1986 BLD (AD)22 1—Cited.


Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1924, Section—24

The words non-agricultural land means a piece of land in joint possession and enjoyment without partition which may form the tenancy or a portion of tenancy. This interpretation will not throw the land open to the unlimited number of persons but to persons who are co-sharer tenants under the same landlord in respect of undivided land though such co-sharer tenants may be co sharer tenants of the tenancy.

Syed Sad Ali Vs Bidhan Chandra Dev and ors., 20 BLD (HCD) 343.

Ref: S M Basiruddin Vs Zahurul Islam Chowdhury, 35 DLR(AD) 230; Moniudra Chandra Ghose Vs. Mujibul Islam, 12 DLR page 185—discussed


Right of Pre-emption-Estoppel

Any and every act touching the transaction in which the pre-emptor may have taken part or the mere fact of knowledge about the transfer or temporary unwillingness on his part to buy cannot debar him from claiming his right at the proper time. Therefore, when the pre-emptor’s inability to purchase the land on the ground of financial inability which was a temporary one will not operate as estoppel from purchasing the land and exercise his right of pre-emption.

Abdul Khaleque Vs Mosammat Kohinor Hamid, 20 BLD (HCD) 405.

Ref: 44DLR(AD)62; Akhlasur Rabman and ors Vs. Satarullah and ors, 42 DLR (AD)189; Ocean Industries Ltd. Vs. Industrial Development Bank, I 8DLR(SC)364—Cited


Limitation and partial pre-emption

Since one of the pre-emptees was not impleaded in the preemption case within the statutory period of limitation, the case is barred by limitation at least as against him. In such a case, even if the pre-emption case is found to be maintainable against other preemptees, who were brought on record  within time, the case must fail as a whole as partial pre-emption is not permissible under section 96 of the SAT Act.

Mossammat Arifan Nessa Vs Haroonor-Rashid and others, 17 BLD (HCD) 86.

Ref: 32 DLR 68; 38 C,W.N. 654; 49 C.W.N. 242; 19 DLR 659; 13 DLR 323, 14 DLR 847; 28 DLR 400; 42 DLR (AD) 110; 42 DLR(AD) 1 ;—Cited.

Section —96


Pre-emption is a kind of purchase in preference according to category. When the question of purchase comes, the seller or transferee must have some right or saleable interest in the holding without that what the buyer will get by pre-emption, whatever may be the nature of transfer, So, against fictitious transfer pre-emption cannot be allowed. If preemption is allowed in respect of fictitious transfer, it will illegally affect the share and interest of the real co-sharers, which cannot be allowed by a Court of law.

Md. Solaiman Au Sheikh and others Vs Abu Bakar .Siddique and others, 17 BLD (HCD)444 


Homestead outside Municipal area comes within its ambit

Transfer of a homestead land by a raiyat beyond the Municipal area is pre-emptible under section 96 of the S.A.T. Act and not under section 24 of the N.A.T Act. Homestead is a part of the holding of a raiyat and is not excluded from the operation of section 96 of the Act, homestead situated in the rural area being regarded as an agricultural land.

Mantu Faraji alias Jamal Faraji and others Vs. Mahiuddin Khan, 17 BLD (HCD) 600.

Ref: 20 DLR562; 21 DLR633; Civil Appeal No. 47-D of 1963; (Civil Revision No. 639 of 1969); 33DLR (AD)323; 30 DLR75;— Cited.


The view that whenever there is a reconveyance of the case land by the vendee to the vendor, by any means whatsoever, the right of preemption is lost is too radical a view it is contrary to the underlying principle regulating pre-emption. Only a bonafide reconveyance by which the case land has actually gone back to the original vendor may stand as a bar against pre-emption. In view of the fact that the Appellate Division has already settle the law on the subject in the case of Shaft Khan Vs. Monnuzan Hossain and others reported in 35DLR(AD) 225, the view of the taken by a single Bench of the High Court Division in the case of Abbas Au Khan vs Osman Gani, reported in 37 DLR 25 is evidently erroneous and unacceptable.

Abdul Mannan Mollah and others Vs Md. Abid Ali Patwari and others, 18 BLD (HCD) 397.

Ref: 37DLR 25—Not approved.


When a pre-emptor comes to the Court to exercise his right of pre-emption, which is essentially a predatory right, after a long lapse of time a heavy duty is cast upon him to prove his alleged knowledge about the impugned transfer by most convincing evidence so as to circumvent the apparent bar of limitation.

Habibur Rahman alias Md. Habibur Rahman and another, Vs Mobarak Au Ran and others, 17 BLD (HCD) 637.

Ref: Anil Kumar and others Vs. Syed Hafeez Moinuddin & ors,35 DLR 39—Cited.


Testimony of a co-sharer and witnesses as to the date of the knowledge of the transfer of a portion or share of a holding of a raiyat should be considered in determining whether the an application for pre-emption under section 96(1) had been filed within four months of the date of the knowledge of the ask the transferor if he had transferred the case land or other lands.

Kuleshar Barman alias Kakaru Barman ‘. Sree Naresh Chandra Barman and others, 21 BLD (HCD) 597. 


Statutory deposit

Under Section 96(3) of the Act the preemptor has to make the statutory deposit of the consideration money with compensation at the time of filing the application for preemption. The trial Court was thus wrong in accepting a short deposit. But in view of the indolence and repeated laches of the petitioner enabling him to remain in possession of the case land for over a decade and in view of the farther fact that the pre-emptee is a co-sharer to the case of the Appellate Division declined to interfere.

Md. Mojibar Rahim Mondal Vs. Khoteza Khatoon, 16 BLD (AD) 281


A preemptor may be held to be estopped from enforcing his right of preemption if he abandons such right either expressly or by implied conduct. Acquiescence implies that if a person abstained from interfering while a violation of his legal right is in progress it operates by way of estoppel. In the instant case, there are adequate evidence on record to prove that the petitioner had knowledge of the sale made by his brother and he gave consent to the sale in question waiving his preferential right of purchase.

Sree Aumullaya Chandra Halter v. Md. Mohsin Au Mondal & others, 22 BLD (HCD) 572

Ref: Akhlasur Rahman and others Vs. Serazuddin and others, 42 DLR (AD)189.


Clause (a) of sub-section 10 of section 96 of the State Acquisition and Tenancy Act stands as a bar against the pre-emptor to maintain his application against the preemptee, who acquired the status of a co-sharer by way of inheritance before the deed of transfer under pre-emption was registered under section 60 of the Registration Act.

Abdul Malek Majhee Vs. Apser All Howlader, 17 BLD (HCD) 522. 

Section—96 (10)(b)

Deeds captioned as sale deeds-Can these be held to be deeds of exchange and not pre emptible?

Three deeds were executed in the same sitting and registered on the same day bearing consecutive numbers 12006, 12007 and 12008-The transferees of deed no 12006 except Ahmed Au-are the recipients (transferees) of deed no. 12007 (recipients being Belaiyat Au, Arab Ali and Rajah Ali), The recipients (transferees of deed no. 12008 is Ahmed Ali alone, who is of the transferees of deed no. 12006-The transferees of deed no. 12006 are together the recipients of deed nos 12007 and 12008 and the transferees of deed nos. 12006 are the transferees of deed nos. 12007 and 12008-Facts and circumstances of the case lead to the conclusion that these are deeds of exchange and not of sale and as such not pre-emptible u/s 96(10)(b) of the S.A.T. Act.

Patan Khan and others Vs. Amud Ali Sheikh and others, 14 BLD (HCD) 461. 


Presumption of correctness of R.S. Khatian A record of rights finally published and revised under section 144A of the S.A.T. Act has a presumption of correctness and that presumption continues till it is rebutted by reliable evidence. In the instant case the plaintiffs name has been recorded in the finally published R.S. Khatian in respect of the suit property and the Government is realizing rent from him regularly thereby recognizing .him as a tenant. Recognition of the plaintiff as a tenant in respect of the suit property by the Revenue Authority of the Government is binding upon the Vested property Department and consequently the latter cannot claim the suit property as vested property.

Dayal Chandra Mondal and others vs. The Assistant Custodian of Vested and NonResident Properties (L & B) and Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue), Dhaka and others, 18 BLD (HCD) 22.


In the event of a conflict between the old Record of right and the recent record of right, recent record of right would prevail in as much as presumption of the record of right loses its weight with the passage of time and entry in the subsequent khatian.

Fatema Khatun Vs. Fazil Mia, 21 BLD (HCD) 14.

Ref: Abdul Hamid and ors Vs. Abul Hossain Mir being dead his heirs Abdus Sobhan Mir and ors, 35 DLR HCD295—relied 


An appeal, whether from original order or from an appellate order made under any provision of Part V of the Act by a Revenue Officer subordinate to Collector, shall lie to the Collector and for such appeal, the period of limitation is thirty days.

Abdur Rahman and others Vs. The Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, 13 BLD (HCD) 411.

Ref: Jafar Ali Vs. Khagendra Chandra Dutta, 1983 BLD 32-Cited.


Section—86(2) (3)

If a diluviated land re-appeared prior to the date of coming into force of Part V of the S.A.T. Act, such land would not vest in the Government but if the land re-appeared thereafter, it would vest absolutely in the Government and the right, title and interest of the tenant shall be extinguished.

Ganaprajatantri Bangladesh Sarker Vs. Joinal Abedin Dewan and others, 15 BLD (AD)234

Ref: A. Mannan Vs. Kulada Ranjan, 31 DLR (AD) 195—Cited.