The case of the plaintiff was that by 3 registered sale deeds exhibits-2, 2(A), 2(B). he transferred the suit land to defendant 3 on 22.04.1974 and the defendant -3 in his turn, by another deed of conveyance registered, exhibit-1, on the same date agreed to recovery the said land to the plaintiff on receipt of Taka 6,000.00—if one wants to be Proyected under Section -41 of the transfer of property Act, he is required to prove that he took all reasonable care to ascertain the title of his vendor. He inquired at least in the local Sub-Registrar’s office to know if the land had any charge or encumbrance or not to establish his bona fide. He would naturally try to gel all the documents of
title and possession from his vendor. Onus is very heavy on him. There is no onus on the otherside — the defendants 1 and 2 pleaded that they were bona fide purchasers for value without notice of the Ekrarnama. But they did neither plead nor lead any evidence that they took any steps to ascertain the title of their vendor, defendant 3 or their purchased land. i.e. the suit land did not have any charge or encumbrance. They did not make any inquiry even in the local registration office. They did not want to get the documents of title or possession. In their deeds, exhibit A(2) and A(3) though executed and registered about four years apart. It is written in verbatim, to trace the title the defendant 3 is Lwi` m~‡Î gvwjK `Lj`vi I gvwjK e‡U| This vital fact of purchase from the plaintiff was deliberately suppressed
exhibits A(2) and A(3, Purpose was very clear, not to divulge the knowledge about the Ekrarnama.

In his deposition, defendant 1 as DW-1 stated that the plaintiff transferred the land to the defendant 3 by an out and out sale. In cross examination, he admitted that defendant 3 on being asked told him that the original Kabala was lying with the plaintiff. He did not try to obtain the Kabala. Defendant 2 as DW-2 deposed in the same vein that original Kabala was with the plaintiff and he did not try to get the Kabala. Both of them however, stated that they purchased seeing the copy of the Kabala, But they did not adduce the copy to probe their bona fide.

Mrs. Wahida Begum & Ors. Vs. Tajul Islam & Ors. 8 BLT (HCD)-238.


The Miscellaneous case for pre-emption was disposed of and allowed on 27.06.1983 Aforesaid two deeds of re-conveyance were executed on 28.02.1983. The finding of the trial court that the deed of re-conveyance is hit by doctrine of lis pendents under section -52 of the Transfer of Property Act was rightly arrived at.

Jahangir Alam Vs. Sri Salilish Chandra & Ors. 9BLT(HCD)-78


In the instant case the purchaser did not adduce any evidence to show when the purchaser go the purchased land mutated in his name. But, Exts. Uma seris clearly show those were issued during the Pendency of the proceeding for pre-emption. If it is so, such mutation or subdivision is not based on any lawful order of a Revenue officer. Because the order admittedly obtained without service of notice upon the pre-emptor and his brothers and sisters must be also hit by the doctrin of lis pendans under Section 52 of the transfer of property Act.

Harunur Rashid Vs. Afroza Khanam & Ors. 9 BLT(HCD)-135.


Held : We agree with the finding of the High Court Division that the petitioner Zubeda Ahmed did not acquire any title by way of gift from Hafiz Mohammad Ahmed who himself had no title but merely held power of attorney to transfer. [Para-3]

Mrs. Zuheda Ahmed Vs. Bangladesh & Ors. 10 BLT(AD)-32


Section 58(C) of the transfer of property Act contemplates mortgage by conditional sale wherein it has been clearly laid down that where the mortgagor ostensibly sells the mortgage property on condition that on such payment being made the buyer shall transfer the property to the seller, the transaction is a mortgage by conditional sale. The law permits for such a document.

Asmat Ali Vs. Abdur Rqfique Mridha & Ors. 9BLT(AD)-77

Section 105 & 106

The monthly tenancy is not heritable but it is a contract between individual and on the death of any of the parties the contract terminates —after the death of the tenant, his heirs cannot be substituted in the suit, in his place.

Abdul Malek & Ors. Vs. Mst. Rezia Begum 9BLT(HCD)-338

Section-106 read with

Premises Rent Control Ordinance

Valid and legal notice—agreement, clause speaks for one months notice in order to terminate the tenancy – in the instant ease, a notice dated 18.01.1974 was served upon the respondent-tenant determining the tenancy with efleet from 28th day of February 1974 and though the period of notice dated 18.01.1974 determining the tenancy with effect from 28.02.1974 was more than perio of 30 days contemplated by Ext. 1 the same do not in any way prejudice the petitioner or suffer form any illegality or infirmity in the service of notice determining the tenancy and is in consonance with the terms of Fxt. 1 and the provision of law in spite of the fact that the payment of rent was according to the English calendar month and only 15 days notice is required for determination and termination of the tenancy under the provision of Section 106 Transfer of Property Act. In that view of the matter allowing more that one months notice to determine the tenancy has not contravened any of the provision of the Transfer of property Act or the terms of Ext. 1 as there was no alteration or variation thereof and the same is valied compliance with the agreement between the parties and thus the notice determining the tenancy is also a valid one.

Sontosh Mukar Das Vs. Hajee Badiur Rahman. 10 BLT (AD)-59.


Only requirement of clause (g) is that the lessor does some act showing his intention to determine the lease and there is no reason why the lessors election by way of a notice must be prior to the institution of the suit. In a case of forfeiture of tenancy for denial of title, written notice of lessor’s intention to determine the lease is not compulsory and must be optional as the notice is not a part of the cause of action for such eviction and that the cause of action is the denial of the landlord’s title resulting determination of the tenancy by forfeiture.

Zohra Khatton & Ors. Vs. Ekamul Haque Chowdhury & Ors. 10 BLT (AD)-171


Abdul Hakim raised construction in the suit land is not disputed by the defendants. In view of such facts, though the suit land was recorded in the name of the defendants, I am of the opinion that such record will not stand on the way in getting a decree by the plaintiffs in the suit since the plaintiffs have acquired a heritable, non-ejectable right in the suit land, particularly when the said S.A. record which was prepared after I960, after the Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act 1949 came into force. I am further of the view that the plaintiffs have acquired a right which cannot be said anything less than title in the suidand.

Ramjan Mia & Ors. Vs. Idu Mia & Ors. 10 BLT(HCD)-229.