High Court Recognizes Validity of 61-Year-Old Gift Deed, Upholds Trial Court’s Dismissal of Title Suit

Justice Md. Shohrowardi delivered the judgment on 19 August 2026 in Civil Revision No. 4837 of 2003. The judgement was published on the website of the Supreme Court on 25 October, 2026.

Background of the Case

The dispute concerned land measuring 33 decimals and 10 decimals in Anwara, Chattogram, originally recorded in the name of Foizunnessa in the R.S. records.

The plaintiffs claimed that they had acquired title to and possession of the land through inheritance and an amicable partition among the heirs. They alleged that the subsequent P.S. and B.S. records had been incorrectly prepared in the names of other persons.

The defendants, however, contended that Foizunnessa had gifted the disputed land to her daughter, Tamanna Khatun, through an unregistered gift deed dated 28 January 1931. Following Tamanna Khatun’s death, her heirs allegedly sold the land to defendant No. 14 through two deeds executed in 1991. Defendant No. 14 claimed to have been in possession of the land and to have regularly paid land revenue.

Decisions of the Lower Courts

The plaintiffs instituted Other Suit No. 55 of 1994 seeking a declaration of title and confirmation of possession.

On 15 January 2002, the Senior Assistant Judge, Anwara, dismissed the suit. The plaintiffs subsequently filed Other Appeal No. 75 of 2002 before the Additional District Judge, Sixth Court, Chattogram.

On 18 August 2003, the appellate court reversed the trial court’s judgment and decree. Challenging that decision, the heirs of defendant No. 14 filed Civil Revision No. 4837 of 2003 before the High Court Division under Section 115(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

High Court’s Observations

Upon examining the evidence, the High Court found that the gift deed dated 28 January 1931 had been produced by defendant No. 14 from proper custody. The plaintiffs had not raised any objection when the deed was admitted into evidence as an exhibit.

The Court noted that, when the suit was instituted in 1994, the deed was already 61 years old. Foizunnessa, the deed writer and the witnesses to the deed had died by the time of trial, making it impossible for the defendants to prove its execution through their testimony.

In these circumstances, the Court held that the deed attracted the presumption under Section 90 of the Evidence Act, 1872, regarding its execution. The plaintiffs were not entitled to challenge the execution of the deed for the first time at the appellate stage after failing to object when it was admitted into evidence.

The High Court consequently set aside the appellate court’s findings that the gift deed had not been legally proved and that the P.S. and B.S. records had been incorrectly prepared.

The Court further observed that a record of rights does not itself create title, although it carries evidentiary value concerning possession. In the present case, the relevant khatians, rent receipts and subsequent transfer deeds supported defendant No. 14’s claim of title and possession.

The Court found that the land had been recorded in the name of Tamanna Khatun and subsequently in the names of her heirs. The heirs of Foizunnessa had not been recorded as owners of the disputed land in the subsequent khatians. The evidence also showed a history of payment of land revenue by the successive holders.

Accordingly, the High Court concluded that the gift deed had been acted upon and that title to the disputed land had passed to Tamanna Khatun. Defendant No. 14 had subsequently acquired title through the deeds executed in 1991. The plaintiffs had failed to rebut the evidentiary presumption concerning defendant No. 14’s possession.

The Court also found that the appellate court had failed to properly consider material evidence and had reversed the trial court’s decision without adequately addressing the relevant findings. Such misreading and non-reading of evidence constituted an error of law resulting in a failure of justice.

Final Decision

Finding merit in the revision, the High Court made the Rule absolute, set aside the appellate court’s judgment and decree dated 18 August 2003, and affirmed the trial court’s judgment and decree dated 15 January 2002 dismissing Other Suit No. 55 of 1994.

There was no order as to costs.

Legal significance

The judgment illustrates the application of Section 90 of the Evidence Act, 1872, to an old document produced from proper custody. However, the presumption concerning an old document does not automatically establish title in every case; the Court must also consider the other evidence, including relevant transfer deeds, records and evidence of possession.

Source: Supreme Court of Bangladesh, High Court Division, Civil Revision No. 4837 of 2003; judgment dated 19 August 2026. The judgement was published on the website of the Supreme Court on 25 October, 2026.