Earlier Registered Sale Deed Prevails Over Subsequent Deed Based on Fabricated Agreement for Sale: High Court Division
 |
| Supreme Court of Bangladesh |
The High Court Division of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh has held that an earlier registered sale deed prevails over a subsequent deed where the alleged prior unregistered agreement for sale relied upon by the subsequent purchasers is found to be fabricated and fraudulent. The Court also held that the plaintiff had sufficiently established the identity and boundaries of the disputed land through documentary and oral evidence.
In a judgment delivered on 14 September 2026, Mr. Justice Md. Ali Reza disposed of Civil Revision No. 3927 of 2015, with Civil Revision No. 1238 of 2008, arising out of a long-standing dispute over title to and possession of land in Brahmanbaria.
Background of the Case
The plaintiff instituted Title Suit No. 169 of 1985 on 24 November 1985, seeking a declaration of title and recovery of possession of two decimals of land. His case was that the original owners, Shailabala Roy and her son Jagadish Chandra Roy, had transferred the property to him through a registered sale deed dated 25 February 1976 and delivered possession to him.
According to the plaintiff, he constructed a tin-shed house on the land and operated a medicine business there. The defendants allegedly demolished the structure and dispossessed him on 7 January 1977. Although the authorities subsequently directed restoration of possession, the plaintiff claimed that the defendants again demolished his house and dispossessed him on 22 September 1978.
The defendants contested the suit, claiming that they had entered into an earlier agreement for sale with Shailabala and subsequently acquired the property through a sale deed executed on 4 October 1976 and registered on 19 October 1976. They alleged that the plaintiff's deed was forged and fraudulent and denied his claim to title and possession.
Procedural History
The trial court initially decreed the suit on 30 March 1995. However, the appellate court allowed the defendants' appeal on 12 October 1998. Following an earlier revision and remand, the trial court dismissed the suit on 24 November 2004.
The plaintiff subsequently preferred Title Appeal No. 15 of 2005. On 29 August 2007, the appellate court set aside the trial court's judgment and decree and remanded the suit for further proceedings. The defendants challenged that decision in Civil Revision No. 1238 of 2008, while the plaintiff filed Civil Revision No. 3927 of 2015.
Considering that the suit had remained pending since 1985 and sufficient evidence was already available on record, the High Court Division decided to determine the dispute on its merits rather than order another remand.
Findings of the High Court Division
Upon examining the oral and documentary evidence, the Court found that the plaintiff had established his title and earlier possession of the disputed land, followed by dispossession. The plaintiff's registered sale deed, the testimony of witnesses, documents concerning earlier restoration-of-possession proceedings, and the Commissioner's report supported his case.
The Court found serious irregularities in the defendants' alleged agreement for sale, or bainapatra, dated 9 November 1974. These included differences between the ink used for the agreement and the witnesses' signatures, the appearance of court seals bearing the date 23 August 1971 on a document allegedly executed in 1974, and unexplained circumstances surrounding the purchase of the stamp paper.
The subsequent sale deed relied upon by the defendants also contained suspicious features, including irregularities concerning the registration seals and the purchase of stamp paper. Furthermore, the deed made no reference to the alleged earlier agreement for sale, despite the defendants' assertion that the plaintiff had purchased the land with knowledge of that agreement.
Considering these circumstances alongside the defence evidence, the Court found that the alleged agreement and subsequent deed had not been prepared and executed in the ordinary course and had been fabricated to support the defendants' claim.
The Court further rejected the objection that the identity and boundaries of the suit land were uncertain. It observed that the plaintiff had sufficiently established the boundaries through the plaint, the schedules to the sale deed, witness testimony, the Commissioner's report, and the case map. Accordingly, the requirements of Order VII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure had been satisfied.
The Court also considered a certified copy of the finally published B.S. Khatian, which recorded the disputed land in the plaintiff's name and referred to the defendants in the remarks column as persons in forcible possession. The Court noted that a finally published record of rights carries strong presumptive value when supported by other evidence.
Legal Significance
The Court rejected the defendants' reliance on Section 47 of the Registration Act to claim priority based on the alleged earlier agreement for sale. It held, in the circumstances of the case, that the plaintiff's earlier registered sale deed prevailed over the subsequent deed relied upon by the defendants, particularly because the alleged unregistered agreement was found to be fabricated.
The judgment also underscores that objections concerning the identification of disputed land cannot succeed merely because the boundaries are described in complex language, where the land can be clearly identified from the pleadings, documentary evidence, witness testimony, and a Commissioner's report.
Decision
The High Court Division set aside the judgments and decrees passed by the courts below. The Rule issued in Civil Revision No. 3927 of 2015 was made absolute, while the Rule issued in Civil Revision No. 1238 of 2008 was discharged.
The Court declared the plaintiff entitled to a decree for declaration of title and recovery of possession of the disputed property. It directed Defendants 1 and 2 to remove all obstructions from the land and hand over possession to the plaintiff within 30 days from the date of communication of the judgment and order. In default, the plaintiff would be entitled to recover possession through the process of the Court.
Case Reference: Shahana Begum and others, legal heirs of Dr. Ashraf Hussain v. Haji Asaduzzaman Bhuiyan and others, Civil Revision No. 3927 of 2015, with Civil Revision No. 1238 of 2008.
Bench: Mr. Justice Md. Ali Reza
Date of Judgment: 14 September 2026
Court: High Court Division, Supreme Court of Bangladesh
Judgement Publshed on: October 19, 2026
BD Law Post/Masum
