Sirajul Haque and Ors. Vs. Zulekha Begum and Ors. [2022] 10 LNJ (HCD) 138.

The respondent Nos. 1-4 as plaintiffs filed a Title Suit for declaration that the documents
mentioned in the schedule Nos. 1-6 to the plaint are forged. They claimed that Rustom Howlader,
who was their father and the father of the defendant Nos. 1 and 6 also, died at the age of 110. From
20 years before his death, he was completely unable to walk or move because of his dire sickness
along with blindness and was completely bed ridden. He lived with the defendants in a mess till
his death and taking such advantage of his illness those impugned documents were obtained. On
the other hand, defendants claimed that Rustom Howlader was never sick or bed ridden or blind
and was always healthy and performed his own work by himself before his death. The trial Court
decreed the suit mainly on the finding that Rustom Howlader was sick from 1980 till his death and
he had no normal sense or consciousness. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment
and decree dated 28.09.2003 passed by the trial court, the contesting defendant Nos. 1-3 as
appellants preferred the instant appeal before this Court.

1. Prepared for : Sirajul Haque and Ors. Vs. Zulekha Begum and Ors. [2022] 10 LNJ (HCD) 138 Mehenaj Binte Amin Lecturer Department of Law, Green University of Bangladesh Prepared By : Syed MD Alamgir Hussain ID: 223011029 Department of Law, Green University of Bangladesh Course Title: Code of Civil Procedure II Course Code: LLBH 407

2. Facts Plaintiffs (respondents) claimed documents (1–6) were forged. They alleged Rustom Howlader (their father) was bedridden, blind, and too sick from 1980 until his death. Defendants argued he was healthy and capable. Trial Court decreed in favour of plaintiffs → held that Rustom was too sick. Defendants appealed.

3. Issue Whether the impugned judgment is bad in law and liable to be set aside? Whether Rustom Howlader was actually dreadfully sick or not? Whether the onus of proof lay upon the plaintiffs or upon the defendants? Whether the plaintiffs’ suit is barred by limitation?

4. Courts’ findings on the issues The trial court’s decree was not valid No reliable proof that Rustom was incapacitated. No medical records or doctors were produced. Plaintiffs had the initial burden of proof under Sections 101 & 103 of the Evidence Act. Cause of action arose in 1995 (certified copies obtained) → Suit filed in 2002 → time-barred under (s. one) Article 120 of the Limitation Act.

5. Appeal allowed. Trial court decree set aside. Impugned documents presumed valid. Judgment

6. Importance Highlights the burden of proof in forgery claims. Application of limitation laws in property disputes. Medical/expert evidence when incapacity is claimed.

7. End Presentation Thank You For Your Attention