IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH HIGH COURT DIVISION

(CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION)

Present:

Mr. Justice S M Kuddus Zaman

CIVIL REVISION NO.1980 OF 2010

In the matter of:

An application under Section 115(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

And

Md. Joynul Abedin and others

.... Petitioners

-Versus-

Md. Idris Ali Sheikh and others

.... Opposite parties

Mr. Shasti Sarker, Advocate

.... For the petitioner.

Mr. Md. Shahidul Islam, Advocate

…. For the opposite party Nos.1-3.

Heard on 28.11.2024 and 02.12.2024. Judgment on 03.12.2024.

This Rule was issued calling upon the opposite party Nos.1-3 to show cause as to why the impugned judgment and decree dated 30.11.2009 passed by the learned District Judge, Rajbari, in Title Appeal No.48 of 2008 affirming the judgment and decree dated 18.05.2008 passed by the learned Assistant Judge, Pangsha, Rajbari in Title suit No.24 of 2006 in decreeing the suit should not be set aside and or pass such other or further order or orders as to this Court may seem fit and proper.

Facts in short are that opposite party as plaintiff instituted above suit for specific performance of unregistered sale deed dated 16.11.2005 for sale of 35 decimal land by defendant No.1 to the plaintiff.

It was alleged that above land belonged to Amzad Hossain who declared to sale above land and the plaintiff agreed to purchase the same at a price of Taka.2,00,000/- and on receipt of Taka.1,00,000/- defendant No.1 executed a bainapattra on 25.10.2005. On 16.11.2005 plaintiff and defendant No.1 went to the Sub-registry Office for execution and registration of a kabala deed for above land and on receipt of remaining Taka 1,00,000/- defendant No.1 executed above sale deed. But the defendant refused to registrar above document unless an additional Taka 20,000/- was paid. The plaintiff refused to pay above additional money and defendant No.1 escaped from the Registry Office.

Defendant No.1,2 and 4 contested above suit by filing a joint

1 written statement alleging that defendant No.1 contracted to sale 172

decimals land to defendant Nos.2-4 for Taka 2,00,000/- and on receipt an advance of Taka 1,00,000/- executed a bainapatra on 18.05.2005 and executed and registered a sale deed on 13.04.2006 and delivered

possession. Defendant No.1 agreed to sale 1712 decimal land to the

plaintiff and a sale deed was accordingly written and he gave signature on the same in good faith in the Sub-registry Office. But subsequently

1

he read over above document and found that instead of 72 decimals

land the plaintiff has in collusion with the scribe included total 35

decimal land in above sale deed. As such he refused to register above sale deed and left the Sub-registry office.

At trial plaintiff and defendant examined 3 witnesses each. Documents of the plaintiffs were marked as Exhibit Nos.1-4 and those of the defendants were marked Exhibit Nos.Ka and Kha.

On consideration of facts and circumstances of the case and evidence on record the learned Senior Assistant Judge decreed the suit.

Being aggrieved by above judgment and decree of the trial Court defendant No.1-4 as appellants preferred Title Appeal No.48 of 2008 to the learned District Judge, Rajbari who dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court.

Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with above judgment and decree of the Court of Appeal below above appellants as petitioners moved to this court and obtained this rule.

Mr. Shasti Sarker, learned Advocate for the petitioners submits that the deed of contract dated 16.11.2005 being not a registered document this suit was barred by section 17(a) of the Registration Act, 1908. It is true that the registered kabala deed of defendant Nos.2-4 was registered on 13.04.2006 but above sale deed was registered pursuant to the deed of bainapatra executed by defendant No.1 in favor of d