Appellate Court as the last Court of facts- We find that the appellate Court as the last court of facts has meticulously discussed the evidence on record and rightly reversed the findings of the trial Court. The observation of the High Court Division that the appellate Court did not reverse the findings of the trial Court is not correct. The appellate Court has elaborately dealt with the points raised by the trial Court. The impugned judgement and order of the High Court Division is not sustainable. Hence, the appeal is allowed, without however, any order as to costs. Fatema Khatun (Mst.) VS Towhida Begum (Mst.). [4 LM (AD) 113]
Appellate Court is the final Court of fact- The High Court Division erred in failing to appreciate that the appellate Court was the final Court of fact, and the revisional Court could only interfere if there was misreading or non-consideration of evidence or misconception of law. No such infirmities were identified in this case. .....Government of Bangladesh -VS- Md. Sadek Ali, [4 LM (AD) 141]
The appellate court being the last court of facts, it can not be disturbed in the revisional jurisdiction- The burden of proof lies upon him who claims the same. I have also examined that the signature appearing over the dakhila in Bangali (sic, it would be Bangla), does not tally with the admitted signature Shafiuddin over the plaint and the vokalatnama filed before the court. I do not find any English signature of Shafiuddin in the record and as such I do not find any misreading of evidence and misinterpretation of evidence on record by the Appellate Court. Reazuddin Mondal -VS- Md. Shafiuddin, [3 LM (AD) 436]
The Appellate Court being last Court of fact- The Appellate Court being last Court of fact considered the evidence on record, both oral and documentary and found that the heba deeds in question were not executed by the donor. We find nothing wrong with the Appellate Court as well as the High Court Division in relying upon exhibit-'2' in coming as to the genuineness of the heba deeds. When the plaintiff categorically challenged that Md. Motaleb Miah was a literate person and there was no reason on his part to execute and register the heba deeds in question by putting the L.T.I., the onus was squarely upon the defendants to prove their genuineness by examining at least the witness who took his L.T.I in the deed. ..... Ash Mohammad =VS= Most Imamun Nessa, [5 LM (AD) 54]
