A Khatian Is Not a Conclusive Proof of Title; Its Basis Must Be Established: High Court

Relevant Law: Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Amendment of pleadings.

A record-of-rights (khatian) does not, by itself, constitute conclusive proof of title to land; rather, it raises a presumption regarding possession. Where the correctness of a khatian is challenged before a competent court, the basis on which it was prepared may need to be established. However, a plaintiff must independently prove their own title through oral and documentary evidence, and the defendant's failure to establish their defence does not automatically entitle the plaintiff to a decree.

With these observations, the High Court Division of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh set aside a trial court judgment dismissing a land title suit and remanded the case for retrial. The Court observed that a plaintiff should not be made to suffer because of an error committed by their appointed lawyer in preparing the plaint. Accordingly, both parties must be given an opportunity to amend their respective pleadings and adduce further evidence, if necessary.

Background of the Case

The judgment was delivered on 10 September 2026 by a Division Bench comprising Justice S. M. Kuddus Zaman and Justice Tamanna Rahman Khalidi in First Appeal No. 18 of 2018.

The plaintiff, Mohammad Asif, instituted a suit seeking a declaration of title to 6,740 ajutansha of land and a declaration that the recording of the disputed land in City Survey Khatian No. 1 was erroneous and not binding upon him.

According to the plaintiff, the land originally belonged to Prasanna Kumar Basu and others and was correctly recorded in C.S. Khatian No. 2715. The land was subsequently transferred through registered deeds to different persons and eventually came into the ownership of Kazi Salahuddin. The plaintiff claimed to have purchased the land from Salahuddin through a registered kabala deed dated 31 May 1989.

The plaintiff further claimed that he was in possession of the land and had established a factory there. However, the land was recorded in the name of the government in the City Survey Khatian, following which the local Tahsilder refused to accept rent from him.

The government contested the suit, maintaining that the disputed land belonged to the government and had been correctly recorded in City Survey Khatian No. 1.

The Joint District Judge, First Court, Dhaka, dismissed the suit in Title Suit No. 245 of 2012 by a judgment and decree dated 15 June 2017. Aggrieved by that decision, the plaintiff preferred an appeal before the High Court Division.

Findings and Observations of the High Court

The High Court observed that the government had not challenged the legality and correctness of the relevant C.S. Khatian or the registered deeds through which the land had allegedly been transferred to the plaintiff's predecessor.

However, the Court found a significant discrepancy in R.S. Khatian No. 4074. Although the disputed land measured 6,740 ajutansha, only 5,868 ajutansha had been recorded in the name of Kazi Salahuddin, the plaintiff's predecessor.

The Court noted that the plaintiff had failed to explain adequately in the plaint or through evidence how he claimed ownership of the entire 6,740 ajutansha on the basis of a purchase from Salahuddin.

The High Court emphasised that a khatian is not a document of title; it merely raises a presumption regarding possession. A record-of-rights must be prepared in the names of the tenants, their heirs or transferees of the immediately preceding khatian, as applicable. Since the government failed to establish the basis on which the disputed City Survey Khatian had been prepared in its name, the Court found this aspect significant in considering the dispute.

Nevertheless, the Court reiterated that a plaintiff must independently establish title through oral and documentary evidence. A suit cannot be decreed merely because the defendant has failed to prove its case.

The Court also noted that the omission concerning the discrepancy in the R.S. Khatian had occurred during the preparation of the plaint by the plaintiff's appointed lawyer. In the circumstances, the plaintiff should not be made to suffer solely because of that error.

Order of the High Court

Considering the facts, evidence and circumstances of the case, the High Court found merit in the appeal and held that the interests of justice would be served by allowing a retrial.

Accordingly, the Court:

Allowed the appeal.

Set aside the judgment and decree dated 15 June 2017 passed by the Joint District Judge, First Court, Dhaka, in Title Suit No. 245 of 2012.

Remanded the suit to the trial court for retrial.

Directed that both parties be given an opportunity to amend their respective pleadings and adduce further evidence, if necessary.

Directed the trial court to conclude the retrial expeditiously within six months from the date of receipt of the order.

The Court made no order as to costs.

Case Details

Case Name: Mohammad Asif v. Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh and others

Case Number: First Appeal No. 18 of 2018

Court: High Court Division, Supreme Court of Bangladesh

Bench: Justice S. M. Kuddus Zaman and Justice Tamanna Rahman Khalidi

Date of Judgment: 10 September 2026

Source: Judgment of the High Court Division, Supreme Court of Bangladesh.

BD Law Post/Masum