Case Details

Citation(s)
1960 SLG 177 1960 SLD 177 1960 PLD 1060
Dacca High Court
Second Appeal No. 704 of 1957, decision Dated: 11-05-1959.
CHOWDHURY, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: B. C. Panday for B. C. Das
Respondent(s) by: S. C. Dutta, Shahaouddin Ahmad for A. K. V. Nurul Islam for Deputy Registrar.

BABURAM MONDAL

VS

RENUKA BALA ROY CHOWDHURY AND OTHERS

Law:

Section:

Document Mere execution and registration of Kabala---¬Whether passes title Consideration not paid Document not acted upon and remaining in custody of executant Onus on transferee to prove that consideration had passed and document was acted upon. Normally, the title will pass to the transferee on the execution and registration of kabala provided it is acted upon. If, however, the parties intended that no title would pass even after the execution and registration of the kabala as long as the consideration money was not paid, and if in pursuance of that intention the document was not delivered up and remained in possession of the executant for years, it will clearly prove that the document was not acted upon, and if it is not acted upon it cannot pass any title. So also the relationship of landlord and tenant will not be created simply by the execution of the kabuliyat and the patta until and unless they are delivered up and acted upon. The executant, in such circumstances, discharges the initial onus on him to prove that the considera¬tion did not pass and that the transactions were not acted upon, by production of the original kabala and kabuliyat from his custody. The burden then shifts to the other party to prove that consideration passed, 'and the documents were acted upon. THIS JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY: CHOWDHURY, JUSTICE---.--- This appeal is by the defendant. It arises out of a suit for recovery of arrears of rent in respect of 6.67 acres of land recorded in C. S. Plot No. 6676 of khatian No. 976 of Mouza Rangpur in the District of Khulna at the rate of Rs. 11 4 for the years 13:9 B. S. to 1362 B. S. on the basis of a patta of Agrahayan, 1349 B. S. 2. The suit was mainly contested by defendant No. 1 Baburam Mondal. He admitted that he entered into contract to sell his ¼th share of the disputed dar ganti to Harinath Ghose, predecessor of the plaintiffs, and a kabala was executed and registered, and on the same day Harinath executed a pasta in respect of the disputed land of the kabala in favour of Baburam Mondal, Braja Bahar, Haribala and Dinaram, and they executed a kabuliyat for the self same land in favour of Harinath, but as the necessary consideration of…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492