সতর্কীকরণ! কেস রেফারেন্স ওয়েবসাইটে প্রকাশিত অধিকাংশ নজীর বিভিন্ন বই ও ওয়েবসাইট থেকে সংগ্রহ করা হয়েছে। এই সকল নজীর এর সঠিকতার বিষয়ে কেস রেফারেন্স ওয়েবসাইট কোন নিশ্চয়তা প্রদান করে না। কেস রেফারেন্স ওয়েবসাইটে প্রকাশিত নজীর এর উপর নির্ভর এর আগে সংশ্লিষ্ট নজীরটির রেফারেন্স মিলিয়ে নেওয়ার অনুরোধ করা হচ্ছে।
Amalnama and Dakhila
Since the appellate Court did not reverse the finding of the trial Court with regard to the amalnama and dakhila, they stand as evidence of title of the defendants. In this regard the SA record in the name of the defendants is consonant with the amalnama and dakhila, both issued by the landlord. The reasons attributed by the appellate Court for not believing the veracity of the amalnama and dakhilas, namely that they were not registered or written on stamp paper or on printed form, is not tenable, since there is no legal necessity for those documents to be in the form mentioned by the appellate Court. The reasons given by the appellate Court for disbelieving the documents are flimsy and not tenable. Another reason given by the appellate Court for disbelieving those documents is that the name of the witnesses deposing in support of those documents was not mentioned in the plaint. However, such a requirement is not contemplated by Order VI, rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which does not require the names of witnesses to be specified in the plaint. The observation of the appellate Court is, therefore, contrary to law. [73 DLR (AD) (2021) 124]
The plaintiff's claimed that the amalnama and dakhilas, were claimed by them to be forged. But no step was taken by the plaintiffs to prove that those documents were indeed forged. When document is produced by a party to a suit and marked exhibit, especially when a presumption under the Evidence Act is attracted by that document, it is incumbent upon the contesting party to lead evidence in order to substantiate the claim that the document is a forgery or is not genuine. [73 DLR (AD) (2021) 124]
The learned Advocate for the respondents submitted that the amalanama is neither a lease nor agreement to lease and therefore need not be registered and is admissible in evidence even though it is not registered. In support of his contention, the learned Advocate referred to Lakshan Chandra Mandal vs Takim Dhali and others, Calcutta Law Journal 90. In this context we are inclined to the view that the amalnama and dakhilas were correctly considered by the trial Court in finding title and possession in favour of the defendants. [73 DLR (AD) (2021) 124]
Info!
"Please note that while every effort has been made to provide accurate case references, there may be some unintentional errors. We encourage users to verify the information from official sources for complete accuracy."
