The judgment and order of the appellate Court that it was observed that the contesting defendants claimed that the plaintiffs had created the document Exhibit-4 by fraud, but did not particularise the elements of fraud. The appellate Court deduced from the evidence of D.W. 1 that Moijan must have died around the year 1963 and, therefore, had the right to transfer her share of .42 acre, which she did in the kabala dated 10.6.1958. The appellate Court held therefore, that the share of Moijan did not pass on to defendant No. 1 after her demine (demise) as she had already transferred her share to the plaintiffs by the kabala (Exhibit-4), and, therefore, defendant No. 1 did not have the right to transfer the said .42 acre of land to defendant Nos. 5-9 by virtue of register heba deeds dated 13.11.1968 and 19.06.1983. .....Shamar Uddin Mollah & others =VS= Ahammad Ali Mollah & others, (Civil), 2016-[1 LM (AD) 326] ....View Full Judgment