Property Act, 1882
of a document
attestation of a document by a person does not mean that he had knowledge about
the contents of the document and as such he is not bound by the transaction.
and others Vs Au Mohammad Bhuiyan and another, 17 BLD (AD) 199.
the absence of any agreement between the landlord and the tenant a 15 days’
notice determining the tenancy is required. But if the tenant denies title of
the landlord in the suit premises, the necessity of serving any notice upon him
under Section 106 of the T.P. Act is waived.
the original tenancy there was a provision for giving one month’s notice for
determination of the tenancy. But with the change of ownership and attornment
this position changed. Since no period for notice was fixed in the new tenancy,
the tenant cannot invoke the plea of one month’s notice stipulated in the
original tenancy. Moreover, the tenant started a new partnership firm under the
name and style: “MIs. Greenland and Company’ and the landlord issued rent
receipts in favour of the company. This clearly shows that a fresh tenancy was
created and the original contract was no longer in force.
if there is an agreement between the landlord and tenant providing for 30 days
notice for terminating tenancy and the notice served on the tenant falls short
of 30 days but the suit for ejectment is filed after one month of service of
notice under Section 106 of the T.P.Act, the notice will be regarded as a valid
and sufficient one.
Solaiman Vs. Sufla Akhtar Alam being dead her heirs Narjesa Rahamatullah and
others, 16 BLD (HCD) 304.
AIR 1971 (Rajasthan) 55; PLD 1956 (Lahore) 261; 1982 SCMR, 1056—Cited.
Act, 1872(1 of 1872), Section—115
41 of the T.P. Act is an exception to ordinary rule that the transferor cannot
convey a greater till to the transferee than he himself has and has to be
construed strictly. If anyone seeks protection purportedly either under section
41 of the T.P. Act or under Section 115 of the Evidence Act, he must prove the
facts entitling him the benefits under either of the laws. He is required to
prove that he, after taking reasonable care to ascertain that the transferor
had power to make the transfer, acted in good faith.
Begum Vs Tajul Islam, 20 BLD (HCD) 431.
grant by estoppel
essential requirements for application of the provision of this section are :
(a) erroneous or fraudulent
representation by a person having no title or having imperfect title to certain
immovable property that he was authorised to transfer such property; (b) actual
transfer of the said property by him for a reconsideration and (c) subsequent
acquisition of tille or interest by the said person in the said property. On
fulfillment of these conditions the transfer made by the unauthorised person
would operate on the title or interest which has subsequently been acquired by
the said person at the option of the transferee.
Motalib alias Motalib Vs. Yusuf Au Munshi alias Isab Ali, 14 BLD (HCD) 533.
Abu Saber Aziz Mohammad and others Vs. Government of Bangladesh and others, 31
DLR (AD) 218; A.l.R. 1936 (Peshwar) 103—Cited.
provides that a transfer by an unauthorised person, who subsequently acquires
interest in the property transferred, fraudulently or erroneously representing
that he is authorised to transfer certain immovable property and professing to
transfer such property for consideration, such transfer shall, at the option of
the transferee, operate on any interest which the transferor may acquire in
such property at any time during the subsistence of the contract for transfer.
although an agreement to transfer the right of an heir apparent or spes
succession is invalid and unenforceable under the law, conveyance of an estate
by an heir apparent on contingent remains dormant for valuable consideration to
a purchaser is not void. If the state expectant subsequently acquires title in
the property, he is bound to make good the sale and the Court will compel him
to carry out the agreement by way of a legal conveyance.
Nahar and others Vs. Syed Hafizullah and others, 15 BLD (HCD) 565.
property pending suit relating thereto
doctrine of liss pendens under Section 52 of T.P.Act is applicable to
pre-emption proceedings and as such any reconveyance made during the pendency
of the preemption case is hit by Section 52 of the T.P. Act.
and another Vs. Aftabuddin and others, 16 BLD(HCD) 1
37 DLR 324 ; 29DLR 153 ; 1 BCR (AD) 170; 29DLR 229; 1 BCR 27 ; 35 DLR (AD)
along with AIR. 1958 (SC) 838 ; I.L.R. 7 (All) 775; 18 DLR 317 ; 19DLR 677; 33
DLR(AD) 323; 35 DLR (AD) 225—Cited.
is not a deed of title and cannot therefore, confer title to the plaintiff
under section 54 of Transfer of Property Act. But uninterrupted adverse and
hostile possession over a period of 12 years confers title upon the plaintiff.
Courts below on misreading evidence on record and on misconception of law
wrongly held that elements constituting adverse possession are lacking in the
Santipada Datta being dead his heirs: Aranangshu Datta and others. v. Satish
Chandra Das and others, 22 BLD (AD) 246.
Mir Laik Au Vs. Standard Vacum Oil Co., 16 DLR SC 287; Abdul Jalil Miah Vs.
Niropama Ritchil, 49 DLR(AD)61; Abdul Kader Vs. Noor Mohammad 36 DLR (AD) 261;
Fjaz Ali Qidwai Vs. Special Manager, Court of Wards, Bulrampur Estate AIR 1935
P.C. 53; Hafiz Mohammad Fatch Nasib Vs. Sir Swarup Chandra Hukum Chand (1947052
C.W.N. 382; Mozher Sowdagar Vs. Z. Alam
40 DLR AD 62.
redemption of a mortgage
a deed of mortgage is out and out a sale deed with a condition of re-purchase
and subsequently the mortgagor accepts some money from the mortgagee and
relinquishes his right of re-purchase/redemption, the subsequent deal takes
place as a separate transaction between the contending parties and it has the
effect of redemption of mortgage.
Contractor Vs. Abdur Rahim and others, 16 BLD (AD) 160.
of monthly tenancy
the petitioners kept the issue on heritability of monthly tenancy alive and the
transaction is not past and closed, the Court is competent to take note of the
latest decision on the subject.
Mowla and others Vs. Md. Abdul Karim Biswas, 13 BLD (HCD) 351.
Abdus Sattar Vs. Suresh Chandra, 32 DLR(AD)170; 1983 BLD(AD)37, 1983 BLD
(HD)274; 1989 BLD(HD)162; Prodip Das vs. Kazal Das, 44DLR (AD)!; Sharifa Khatun
Vs. Md. Yusuf, 44 DLR(AD) 185- Cited.
of immovable property is created under Section 105 of the Transfer of Property
Act and, as such, statutory notice must be given under Section 106 of the Act
for termination of the tenancy. Without serving a notice. upon the tenant as
contemplated by Section 106 of the T,P. Act, no suit for ejectment of a monthly
tenant can be filed.
Vs. Md. Abdul Majid, 14 BLD (AD) 147.
defendants could not be evicted on the ground that the relationship of landlord
and tenant had ceased with the death of the defendants predecessor and the
tenancy was not heritable. There being no legal and valid ground for the
eviction of the defendants, the suit must fail.
Chandra Talukdar and others Vs Abdul Sattar Chowdhury being dead his heirs:
Ambia Khatun and others, 19 BLD (AD)17
44 DLR(AD)1—relied upon; 38 DLR(AD)97; 32 DLR(AD)170—Cited.
means retaining possession in a demised premises. It does not necessarily
create any tenancy after the expiry of the stipulated lease period. The common
law rule is that if a lessee remains in possession after the expiry of the
terms, he is a tenant by sufferance. There is, of course, a distinction between
a tenant continuing in possession after the determination of the tenancy with
the consent of the landlord and a tenant remaining in possession without the
landlord’s consent. The former is called a tenant holding over or a tenant at
will and the latter is called a tenant by sufferance’.
Hossain Khondker Vs. Mosammat Jaheda Khatoon, 14 BLD (HCD) 549.
Au Vs. Nurunnessa Khatun and others, 43 DLR (AD) 3; Nukul Das Mridha Vs.
Bangladesh and others, 6 BLD (HCD) 331; Azizur Rahman and others Vs. Abdus
Sukur and others, 36 DLR (AD) 195; Khitish Chandra Mondal Vs. Shiba Rani Debi
and others; AIR. 1950 (Cal) 441; Jiwa Lal and Co. Ltd. Vs. Manat and Co. Ltd.
64 C. W. N. 932; National Carriers Ltd. Vs. Panalpina (Northern) Ltd; (1981) 2
W. L. R. 45; Abdul Khaleque Mia Vs. Maya Bibi and others, 35 DLR (AD) 310;
Kesho Vs. Goyal and Company, A.1. R. 1938 (Lahore) 95; R. Vs. Judge of Essex
County Court, (1887) 18 Q. B. D. 704; A.
K. M. Ruhul Amin Vs. District Judge and Election Tribunal, Bhola and others; 38 DLR (AD) 172—Cited.
petitioner having continued as a tenant in the remaining part of the demised
premises after demolition of the front portion he will be deemed to be a tenant
of whatever portion he occupies and there can be no manner of making the notice
ineffective because of changes in the size of the demised premises. Also it
cannot be said that because of demolition of two-third of the tenancy there was
no tenancy at all.
Pada Shil Vs Golam Mohammad, 19 BLD (AD) 124.
a tenant denies the title of the landlord in the demised premises without any
valid reason it operates as a forfeiture of his tenancy right and in such a
case a notice under section 106 of the T.P. Act may be dispensed with.
Solaiman Vs. Mrs. Sufia Akhtar Alam being dead her heirs: Narjesa Rahamatullah
and others, 16 BLD (AD) 47.
Muhammad Islam Khan Vs. Cantonment Board, 1982 Supreme Court Monthly Review
notice served upon a tenant with more than 30 days as contemplated by the
agreement between the parties does not in any way prejudice the petitioner or
suffer from any illegality or infirmity in the service of notice determining
the tenancy and is in consonance with the terms of the agreement and the
provision of law, inspite of the fact that the payment of rent was according to
the English calendar month and only 15 days notice is re quired for
determination and termination of the tenancy under the provision of the section
106 Transfer of Property Act.
Kumar Das v. Hajee Badiur Rahman, 22 BLD (AD) 30.
liabilities of lessor and lessee
a deed of lease has been executed and registered between the parties for 99
years in respect of the case land and delivery of possession has been given to
the petitioner, the lease-hold right being admittedly heritable and
transferable, the Government cannot cancel the allotment order without
cancelling the lease deed as the petitioners right in the land finally accrued
on the lease deed.
of Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Works and others Vs.
MIs. Eastern Industries (B. D.) Ltd, 14 BLD (AD) 254.
the case of forfeiture of a tenancy for denial by the lessee of title to the
immovable property in the lessor, a written notice to the lessee of intention
to determine the lease is not compulsory as the notice is not part of the cause
of action for eviction. The cause of action is the denial of the landlord’s
title resulting in determination of the tenancy by forfeiture.
Ishaque v. Ekramul Haque Chowdhury and others, 22 BLD (AD) 8.
exchange is a mutual transfer between two persons of the ownership of properties,
but either both the things should be money or neither of them should be money.
Therefore, transfer of ownership is a pre-condition for a valid exchange. When
there is a question of title to be decided on the basis of an exchange deed,
the party claiming title must prove that he had ownership in the property
Khatun and another Vs. Anwara Khatun and others, 13 BLD (AD) 171.
the absence of a registered instrument a gift by a person belonging to Hindu
community (governed by the Dayabhaga School of Hindu Law) is not valid under
the provision of section of 123 of the Act.
Kala Miah Vs
Sree Gopal Chandra Paul and others, 18 BLD (HCD) 670.