Mere Denial Is Not Enough to Cancel a Registered Deed: High Court
 |
| Related Provisions: Section 60 of the Registration Act, 1908 and Section 39 of the Specific Relief Act. |
The judgment was delivered on 28 July 2026 by a single bench comprising Justice Md. Shohrowardi in Md. Ibrahim and others v. Md. Fazlur Rahman, Civil Revision No. 854 of 2024. The judgement was published on the website of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh on 15th October, 2026.
Facts of the Case
Most. Ayzan Bewa, an 85-year-old woman, filed Other Class Suit No. 96 of 2011 seeking cancellation of Deed No. 6896 dated 25 July 2010. Through the disputed deed, she allegedly transferred 77 decimals of land to her son, Md. Fazlur Rahman.
The plaintiff claimed that while she was ill and had been taken by her son to Mohadebpur for medical treatment, her thumb impressions were obtained on various documents without her knowledge. She subsequently discovered that the disputed deed had been registered in favour of her son. She denied voluntarily gifting the land and sought cancellation of the deed.
The defendant contested the suit, asserting that his mother had voluntarily executed and registered the deed while in sound condition and had handed over possession of the property to him.
On 31 May 2022, the Assistant Judge, Mohadebpur, Naogaon, dismissed the suit. The Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Naogaon, affirmed that decision on 17 October 2023. The substituted plaintiffs, being heirs of the original plaintiff, subsequently filed a civil revision before the High Court Division.
Findings and Observations of the High Court
Upon examining the evidence, the High Court observed that the plaintiff had executed several other deeds transferring property to her children and third parties. Notably, she had transferred additional land even after execution of the disputed deed. The execution and registration of those other deeds had not been challenged by the parties.
The Court also considered the testimony of the deed writer, who stated that he had read over the disputed deed to the plaintiff before she affixed her left thumb impression. The identifying witness likewise testified that he had identified the plaintiff at the time of registration.
The Court found that the plaintiff had failed to produce evidence establishing that she had not affixed her thumb impression either on the disputed deed or in the relevant register maintained at the Sub-Registrar’s Office.
Accordingly, the Court held that a mere denial of the execution and registration of a deed cannot, by itself, justify its cancellation. The party challenging the deed must substantiate the allegation with appropriate evidence.
Presumption Under Section 60 of the Registration Act, 1908
The High Court emphasised the legal significance of Section 60 of the Registration Act, 1908. Where a registration certificate is issued under this provision, a presumption arises that the deed has been duly registered in accordance with the prescribed procedure and that the relevant statutory requirements have been complied with.
However, the Court clarified that this presumption is rebuttable. A person disputing the execution or registration of a deed may adduce evidence to establish that the executant did not execute or register the instrument as claimed.
In the present case, the plaintiff failed to produce sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption arising from the registration certificate.
Decision of the Court
The High Court found that both the trial court and the appellate court had properly assessed and evaluated the evidence and had arrived at concurrent findings of fact. The Court found no misreading or non-reading of material evidence that would justify interference in its revisional jurisdiction.
Consequently, the Court found no merit in the Rule and discharged it without any order as to costs.
Legal Significance
The judgment reiterates that a registered deed cannot be cancelled merely because its execution is denied. A party challenging the validity of a registered instrument must establish the factual basis of the challenge through credible evidence.
It also clarifies that the presumption of due registration under Section 60 of the Registration Act, 1908, is not conclusive but may be rebutted by appropriate evidence. The decision underscores the importance of evidentiary proof in disputes concerning the execution, registration and cancellation of property deeds.
BDLAWPOST/MASUM
