Ownership Cannot Be Claimed on the Basis of an Unregistered Deed Unless Its Execution Is Proved: High Court
 |
| Supreme Court of Bangladesh |
A single bench of High Court Justice Md. Sarwardy made the observations in its judgment dated 30 July 2026 in Civil Revision Nos. 2691 and 2692 of 2017, Sri Ananta Kumar Aich (deceased), represented by his legal heirs v. Sri Sadhan Bhowmik and others. Both revisions were disposed of by the same judgment. A full copy of the judgment was published on the Supreme Court website on 27 October 2026.
Background of the Case
The dispute concerned land in Netrokona. One party claimed that Digendra Chandra Sarker, the recorded owner in the SA record, transferred 17 decimals of land to Akshay Kumar Aich through an unregistered deed dated 3 February 1970 and also handed over possession. Subsequently, the heirs of Akshay Kumar Aich claimed ownership and possession of the land.
The opposing party, however, argued that no valid transfer had taken place through the unregistered deed. The heirs of Digendra Chandra Sarker retained possession of the land and later sold the 17 decimals to Sadhan Bhowmik through a registered deed dated 21 December 2000.
Earlier, in a suit filed in 1996, an ex parte decree had been issued against the heirs of Digendra Chandra Sarker. The validity of that ex parte decree was also questioned in the subsequent dispute.
Decisions of the Lower Courts
In 2001, the two parties filed separate suits. The cases were also taken up together for hearing. On 7 August 2005, the trial court issued a decree of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiffs in one suit and dismissed the other suit.
Subsequently, by separate judgments dated 4 May 2017, the Additional District Judge, Netrokona, set aside the decisions in both suits and remanded the cases. Two civil revisions were then filed before the High Court challenging those orders.
High Court’s Observations on the Unregistered Deed
The High Court found that the plaintiffs had failed to properly prove that Digendra Chandra Sarker had executed the alleged unregistered deed dated 3 February 1970. No witness identified Digendra Chandra Sarker’s signature on the deed, and the document was not sent to a handwriting expert for verification.
The court further observed that the presumption arising in the case of a registered deed under Section 60 of the Registration Act does not apply to an unregistered deed. Therefore, the proper execution of the unregistered deed must be proved independently.
Plaintiffs Also Failed to Prove Possession
The court noted that, to obtain a decree of permanent injunction, a plaintiff must prove exclusive possession of the specific land within clearly defined boundaries. However, the evidence in the case revealed inconsistencies regarding the plot number and boundaries of the land. The statements of the plaintiffs’ witnesses were also contradictory regarding the location and possession of the property.
According to the High Court, the plaintiffs failed to prove both their exclusive possession of the specific land and the cause of action for filing the suit.
Court’s Decision on the Ex Parte Decree
Upon reviewing the records of the 1996 suit, the High Court found no proof that summons had been properly served on all the defendants. Moreover, one necessary heir had not been impleaded as a party to the suit. The court held that the ex parte decree had been issued without giving all the defendants an opportunity to be heard.
The court further observed that when both parties have already presented the necessary evidence and the record contains sufficient material to resolve the dispute, it is not appropriate to remand the case merely to determine a new issue. A remand is time-consuming and imposes an additional financial burden on the parties.
Powers of the Revisional Court
The High Court held that, once the revisional court’s jurisdiction to intervene under Section 115(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure is established, it may review the entire proceedings and pass any necessary order in the interests of justice. In such circumstances, it is not necessary merely to send the case back to the lower court.
Court’s Order
According to the High Court’s decision, the ownership claimed by the heirs of Akshay Kumar Aich on the basis of the unregistered deed dated 3 February 1970 was not proved. In contrast, the court held that Sadhan Bhowmik had acquired ownership of the 17 decimals through the registered deed dated 21 December 2000 and was also in possession of the land.
Accordingly, the ex parte judgment and decree of 1996 were set aside. The decree passed by the trial court in the 2001 suit and both judgments delivered by the Additional District Judge in 2017 were also set aside. Other Class Civil Suit No. 55 of 2001 filed by Sadhan Bhowmik was decreed, and he was declared the owner of the relevant 17 decimals of land.
BD Law Post/Masum
