PLAINT
The properties listed in Schedule "Ka" (Items 1–4) are located in the Kashipur Mouza under
Ranishankail Upazila of Thakurgaon District. These properties were originally owned by one
Ratan Singh. He obtained them from the zamindar as a raiyat (tenant) and was in possession until
he passed away before the British record survey. At the time of his death, he left behind three
sons as heirs: namely Matiya Singh, Jotun Singh, and Bochon Singh — each inheriting an equal
share. Matiya Singh passed away, leaving two sons who are Kalkachu Singh, Nand Ram Singh
& each inherited equal shares from their father. Jotun Singh died, leaving behind one son: Ala
Singh, who inherited a 1/4 share. Bochon Singh also died, leaving behind one son: Box Singh.
During the British survey, the properties were recorded in CS Khatian Nos. 1133, 1134, 1135,
and 1136 in the names of Kalkachu Singh, Nand Ram Singh, Ala Singh, and Box Singh
respectively.
Kalkachu Singh, while in possession of his 12-anna share, died leaving behind his only son
Serketu Singh. During the Pakistan land survey, the properties listed in Schedule "Ka" were
recorded in SA Khatian Nos. 1077, 1078, 1079, and 1080 in the names of Serketu Singh, Nand
Ram Singh, Ala Ram Singh, and Box Singh respectively. These owners continued to possess
their respective undivided shares jointly and peacefully.
Later, Box Singh, Ala Ram Singh, and Nand Ram Singh died childless, leaving Serketu Singh as
the sole heir. Serketu Singh possessed the Schedule "Ka" properties until his death in 2002,
leaving behind his only son, Bijoy Singh, who inherited the full 16-anna share and continued in
possession.
Bijoy Singh, while in possession, declared his intention to sell 10 decimals of land from Plot 3 of
Schedule "Kha" due to financial needs. The plaintiff agreed to purchase, and on 20/09/2006, via
Deed No. 6656, Bijoy Singh sold 10 decimals out of 58 decimals in CS Khatian No. 1135 and
SA Khatian No. 1079, Plot No. 15133, to plaintiff Mohammad Ali, handing over possession.
Later, Bijoy Singh declared to sell 70 decimals from Plots 2/3 of Schedule "Kha", and the
plaintiff again agreed. On 11/10/2007, via Deed No. 5261, Bijoy Singh sold: 63 decimals in Plot
Nos. 14764 and 14775 of CS-1135 and SA-1079, 07 decimals in Plot No. 15282 of CS-1134 and
SA-1078, totaling 0.70 acres (70 decimals) to the plaintiff.
On 13/11/2007, via Deed No. 5655, Bijoy Singh sold another 50 decimals of land from Plot Nos.
15062, 15124, 15133, and 15173 (CS-1135 & SA-1079) to the plaintiff. In total, the plaintiff
purchased 1.30 acres (10 + 70 + 50 decimals) and obtained possession.
The plaintiff applied for mutation, and the Assistant Commissioner (Land) of Ranishankail, after
inquiry, issued a separate mutation Khatian No. 2171 in the plaintiff's name. During the ongoing
land survey, the surveyors recorded this land under Field Khatian No. 523 in the plaintiff’s name.
The plaintiff later sold 25 decimals (15 decimals from Plot 15062 and 10 decimals from 15173)
to Munsef Ali & 33 decimals (21 from Plot 14775 and 12 from 14764) to Abdur Rahim.
Hence, out of 1.30 acres, the plaintiff retains 0.72 acres, which he still possesses.
Later, the second defendant and others started causing boundary disputes and threatening
dispossession. The plaintiff filed Case No. 128P/08 under Section 144 CrPC with the Executive
Magistrate, Thakurgaon. In response, the defendants claimed they had exchanged the land with
Bijoy Singh’s ancestors. But in truth, Bijoy Singh’s ancestors never exchanged or migrated to
India. Serketu Singh died in Kashipur in 2002, and others also died there.
The defendants fabricated a forged exchange deed and are trying to usurp the land. The 128P/08
case investigation confirmed the plaintiff’s possession and found the defendants to have no
rightful claim. The Magistrate advised approaching the civil court.
On 27/05/2011, during supervision of Plot 15133, the plaintiff was confronted by the defendants
and asked for partition. The defendants refused. As the land is undivided and causing difficulty
in peaceful possession and paying land revenue, the plaintiff seeks partition of his remaining
0.72 acres in separate saham (share).
WRITTEN STATEMENT
The disputed land, along with other lands, was once owned by Kalkachu Singh, Nandu Singh,
Ala Ram Singh, and Box Singh. CS Khatians 1133 to 1136 were prepared and published in their
names. After Kalkachu Singh’s death, his only son Serketu Singh became heir. In SA records,
the lands were again recorded under Serketu Singh, Nandu Ram Singh, Ala Ram Singh, and Box
Singh in Khatians 1077–1080.
After the partition of India, these Hindu owners expressed the intention to migrate to India. The
father of Defendant No. 2, Abdul Kader, agreed to exchange lands with them — his lands in
Godabel, Goalpukur Thana, West Dinajpur, India, with the disputed property in Bangladesh.
An exchange agreement was executed via an Am-Moktanama deed. Abdul Kader applied for
regularization to the DC of Dinajpur, resulting in Misc. Case No. 673/8/70-71 being opened.
Abdul Kader passed away, leaving Defendant No. 2 as his heir. On 17/05/1976, via Registered
Deed No. 22090, the Government, through the DC of Dinajpur, transferred the land to Defendant
No. 2.
He later mutated the land obtaining Mutation Khatian No. 1433. He has been paying land
revenue and possessing the land peacefully since then. The plaintiff has now colluded with a fake
person posing as Serketu Singh’s heir and created forged deeds which are Deed No. 5261
(11/10/07), Deed No. 5655 (13/11/07), & Deed No. 6665 (20/09/06).
These are fraudulent, fabricated, and executed in collusion to falsely claim ownership over the
disputed land. The plaintiff previously filed 144 Case No. MP 128/08 based on these false deeds,
which was dismissed after hearing. The plaintiff also secured fraudulent mutation via Miss Case
No. 329/2007-08, which was canceled upon objection by the defendant.
As the alleged seller’s title was extinguished by valid exchange with Abdul Kader, he had no
right to sell to the plaintiff. Therefore, all deeds based on that are void, forged, collusive, and
legally ineffective. The plaintiff has acquired no right, title, or interest and the suit is liable to be
dismissed outright.
