Mrs Wahida Begum V. Tajul Islam and others 8 BLT (HCD) 2000 238

Facts in Brief: 

Plaintiff transferred his suit land by three sale deeds to defendant 3 by registered sale deed and on the same date of execution another deed of re conveyance. Defendant 3 promised to re convey the suit land to the plaintiff or his heirs on receipt of Tk 6000 any time within 30 Chaitra of any year thereafter the plaintiff offered TK 6000 first to defendant 3 and then to defendant 1and 2 and requested them for return of the suit land but they denied to so, so the plaintiff was constrained to institute the suit The defendant argued that the deed of Ekranama was not executed and was not registered by def 3. They had no knowledge of Ekranama. 

Issue: 

Whether the deed of Ekranama true or false.

Whether he is entitled to remedy under the TP Act, 1882.

Rule of Law:

Section 59 and 60 of the Registration Act, 1908.

Section 67,68, 115 of evidence Act, 1872.

Section 95 and 95 (A) of SAT Act, 1950.

Section -41 of the TP Act, 1882. 

Case Referred:  

1) Bhagwan vs Ujagar AIR P.C 1928

2) Nainsukhdas vs Gowardhandas AIR Nagpur 110

Application of the case:

 It was argued by the defendant no 2 and 3 that they had no knowledge of the existence of the said deed of Ekranama. They had purchased the suit land from def 3 on different times with the knowledge and consent of the plaintiff .The plaintiff attested the sale deed. They Claimed that the transaction between the Plaintiff and def 3 is out and out sale .They claimed themselves to be bona fide purchasers for value without notice of the Ekranama 

It was decreed by the trial court and directed the defendants to deliver the possession of the suit land in favor of the plaintiff within 30 days. The defendant appealed against the decree and appeal court set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court and dismissed the suit. Being aggrieved by the decree of appellate authority the present petitioners moved this court for revision under section 115 of CPC. 

Court applying the rules and principles of the two landmark cases Bhagwan and Nainsukhdas  directed that as the defendants could not place before the court the proper evidence of not being the Ekranama is false one. The court examined and cross examined the witness and evidence of the Ekranama.

Judgment:

 The court held that the Ekranama in fact constitute an usufructuary mortgage not exceeding seven years and that the defendant 1 and 2 were aware of the Ekranama. So the plaintiff is entitled to get restoration of possession of the suit land from the defendant no 2 and 3.

Conclusion:

When one becomes aware about the ekranama , he is to fail to get remedy under the court of law.