Syed Shamim Kawser

Filed by

Advocate
[1]

PLAINT

{Under Order 7 Rule 1 CPC}

District- Purba Medinipur

In the Court of Ld. Civil Judge (Senior Division), 1 st Court, Contai

Title Suit No- /2019

Amitava Das, aged about 56 years

son of Late Bibhupada Das, temporarily

residing at 115 Potong Pasir, Avenue 1, 

Singapore – 350 115 and also having an

permanent address at 255 N.S.C Bose Road,

Maitri Apartment, Flat 203, Kolkata-700047.

…..…Plaintiff

-Versus-

1. Amiya Ranjan Das,

Page 1 of 16
 [2]

Son of Late Bibhu Pada Das,

permanently residing at Flat NEIII, 14/7

Paresh Mazumder Road, Battala Club,

Kasba, P.O – Haltu, P.S; Kasba, Kolkata

-700078.

2. Sunita Jana,

Wife of Sri Goutam Jana,

Permanently residing at Vill -Jalpai,

Manuchawk, P.O: Manuchak, PS: Nandigram

Dist : Purba Medinipur , PIN – 721656

3. Goutam Jana,

Son of sree Gagendranath Jana, permanently

residing at Vill -Jalpai, Manuchak, P.O:

Manuchak, PS: Nandigram, Dist. : Purba

Medinipur , Pin - 721656

……….Principal Defendants

4. Smt. Gauri Rani Das (Sister)

Wife of Sri Pinaki Ranjan Das permanently

residing at Vill.- Dhan Dighi, PO & PS-

Contai, PIN- 721401 Dist. – Purba Midnapore

Page 2 of 16
 [3]

5. Sri Ashesh Kumar Das (Brother)

Son of Late Bibhu Pada Das,

permanently residing at Flat No. 8, Building

No. A, 2nd Floor, Faraz apartment, Church

Road, Jafar Nagar (Behind Police Line),

Nagpur- 440013.

6. Sri Amalesh Kumar Das, (Brother)

Son of Late Bibhu Pada Das,

permanently residing at 801, I tower, JMD

Garden, Sector-33, Islampur, Gurgaon, PIN-

122001, Haryana

7. Smt. Minati Rani Das (Sister)

Daughter of Late Bibhu Pada Das,

Permanently residing at U 3/3 Swarat Palli,

PO & PS-Midnapore, Dist.- Paschim

Midnapore

………….Proforma Defendants

Block- Khejuri- II

Page 3 of 16
 [4]

Claim laid at Rs. 62, 000/-

{For declaration & permanent injunction etc.}

The plaintiff named above beg to say & submit as follows:-

1. The one Mr. Bibhu Pada Das was the absolute owner of all that
piece and parcel of the land measuring about 45 decimal a little
more or less at LR Dag No. 86 and another land measuring 6
decimal in LR Dag No. 89 corresponding to RS Khatiyan No. 67
lying and situated at Mouza Manoharchawk, J.L. No. 61, Touzi
No. 2935, P.S. Khejuri, Purba Medinipur, PIN 721243 as properly
described in the (A) scheduled land below.

2. That the said Bibhu Pada Das possessed the property since long
and constructed a house out of his own fund for the entire family
and he has right, title, interest & possession over the same and
his name is recorded in LRROR in Khatiyan No- 67.

3. That the family of Bibhu Pada Das consist of himself, his wife
and four sons and two daughters who are parties to the suit. The
wife of Bibhu Pada Das died in the year 2013, leaving behind his
four sons and two daughters to succeed intestacy when Bibhu
Pada Das died in the year 2003.

4. That the plaintiff is the fourth son who is a businessman and

have been residing at Vietnam/Singapore for more than 23 years.
The defendant No.1 is the eldest son of Bibhu Pada Das and the
proforma defendant Nos.5 and 6 are second and third son and
the proforma defendant Nos. 4 and 7 are the daughters.

5. That the plaintiff states that his father Bibhu Pada Das, since
deceased, was a freedom fighter, social activist, rural health

Page 4 of 16
 [5]

practitioner and Tahsildar. He purchased the land in

Manoharchawk for his family, even if he faced an enormous
hardship for purchasing the said land. The said Bibhu Pada Das,
since deceased felt that his children should study in Calcutta for
their bright future and sent the Defendant No. 1, the plaintiff and
other brothers and sisters to Calcutta for higher studies after
finishing their school level.

6. That from his college life, the plaintiff observed that the
Defendant No. 1 used to give constant mental pressure upon
father and mother of the plaintiff for providing money to
Defendant No. 1; though the plaintiff’s father at that time was a
retired person.

7. That in the year 1996, the plaintiff left the country for earning
and stayed in Vietnam but he had been giving the cheques for six
months to his father during his life time and almost in every
three/four months visited his parental house in Manoharchawk,
Khejuri to meet his old aged parents as well as the proforma
defendants and maintained a cordial relation with each other.

8. That the plaintiff states that at the time when he was leaving for
Vietnam his father Bibhu Pada Das was then aged about 86
years and had a failing health, and was almost confined to bed.

9. That the plaintiff states that all along during the life time Bibhu
Pada Das maintained the property which he built and
possessed, belongs to the family and he wanted that all his
children should reside together and the property will never be
sold or transferred. He cherished that the cordial relationship
should exist amongst his sons and daughters, who should jointly
enjoy all his properties. He expressed that on and after his death

Page 5 of 16
 [6]

the property should vest upon his wife and thereafter amongst
his children but in equal shares.

10. That the plaintiff states that he admittedly resides out of India,
the proforma defendant Nos. 5 and 6, i.e. 2nd and 3rd Brothers
were also residing at Maharashtra and Assam respectively in
pursuant to their profession, the proforma defendant Nos. 4 and
7 being a married daughters were also residing at their
matrimonial house far from their native place. All of the family
members relied upon the defendant No. 1 including his mother,
who being the eldest member of the family and next to his father,
expected that he will take care of all and will carry on fulfilling
the desires of the Late Bibhu Pada Das and will keep his property
intact and thereafter on his death will divide the same amongst
his children in equal shares as desired by Bibhu Pada Das.

11. That the plaintiff states that the property was for the welfare of
the family. The brothers and sisters are well settled and though
never claimed the ancestral property for their own benefits, as an
epitaph of their beloved father.

12. That during the year 2009, the defendant No. 1 gave a proposal
to all brothers and sisters that the old building should be
demolished and a new building need to be setup for the purpose
of staying of plaintiff and proforma defendants whenever they
would come to Manoharchawk, and on consent of all the house
was demolished.

13. That the plaintiff deposed full confidence and faith upon
defendant No.1 and believed that he will look after the father and
mother and will never take undue advantage of them at their old
age. The father Bibhu Pada Das was man of principle and he

Page 6 of 16
 [7]

sacrificed his whole life to uplift the entire family and also to see
that his children are settled and established in life. The plaintiff
and the proforma defendants established themselves as per their
beloved father’s wish.

14. That the plaintiff states that even in the year 2003 after the
death of his father, he came to perform last rites, he was made to
believe by the defendant No.1 that the entire property is a joint
property and the defendant No.1 is taking care of the same. In
fact the defendant No.1 after the last rites of their father and
thereafter in a family gathering expressed that necessary steps
for mutating the property in the name of the legal heirs is to be
taken and requested the plaintiff and proforma defendants to
give their consent . The defendant No.1 also collected money to
cause repair and renovation of house and for mending wall
surrounding the property. The entire property from that relevant
time till date has been in the possession of defendant No.1, and
the other brothers and sisters including the plaintiff.

15. That the plaintiff states that subsequent to 2003, the plaintiff
numerous times and even recently has visited India and went to
Manoharchawk in regular basis and never came to know or
heard that the father and/or the mother has created any
document in relation to the property in favour of the eldest
brother i.e., defendant No.1. For all intents and purposes it was
all along expressed and mentioned by defendant No.1 that
property is joint and belongs to the family.

16. That the plaintiff states that being well established in Vietnam he
had sufficient means to purchase such type of property in India
and even at Manoharchawk but the sentiments attached to the
suit property is tremendous and any other property will not

Page 7 of 16
 [8]

compensate. The value which the father and mother nurtured

during the childhood of the plaintiff is very deep rooted and
extreme. The plaintiff never wanted the property to disintegrate
and wanted to keep the same for the benefit of the entire family.

17. That the plaintiff states that recently on about the plaintiff came
to know that by virtue of a so-called Deed of Gift dated 23 rd
December, 1998 which was alleged to be registered in the office
at sub-registrar, Khejuri and recorded therein vide Book No. I,
Volume No.84, Pages 126 to 129, Being No.3317 for the year
2000, Bibhu Pada Das transferred 22.5 decimal of land out of his
45 decimal property which is more fully and particularly
described in the “Schedule Part I” mentioned below and 3
decimal of land out of his 6 decimal which is more fully and
particularly described in the “Schedule Part II” hereinafter jointly
referred to as the “suit property”. The plaintiff states that all
along till the death of mother, Smt. Labanya Prabha Das, wife of
Bibhu Pada Das, the defendant No.1 stated that the property is a
joint property and never disclosed about any Deed of Gift in his
name, nor even the plaintiff’s mother during her lifetime ever
spoke of the same.

18. That the plaintiff states that in the year 1998 when the so-called
gift was made, Bibhu Pada was suffering from the various
ailments, he neither had the capacity to execute the Deed nor
was he in a position to understand the same. In fact the said
Deed dated 23.12.1998 is an act of fraud, collusion and
misrepresentation revealed by the defendant No.1.

19. That the plaintiff states that at those relevant times, he has come
to know that apart from defendant No. 1 there was no other
person near the father and taking advantage of his illness the

Page 8 of 16
 [9]

defendant No. 1 had made him sign on some blank stamp and
cartridge papers by misleading him and misrepresenting the
same to be of power of attorney. The then the father of the
plaintiff never disbelieve the defendant no-1 as he has holding
the position of fiduciary relationship and held the dominating
position over the father. In fact the Bibhu Pada Das, since
deceased, did not possess the capacity to understand the gravity
of any such document as he was extremely ill and confined to
bed and dependent upon others including the defendant No.1.
Later on the defendant no-1 with the help of scribe, identifier,
attesting witnesses collusively procure such deed of gift by
converting such blank stamp papers into impugned deed of gift.
The contents of the said deed are not of Bibhu Pada Das. The
deed of gift is not binding upon the plaintiff. The said deed is
result and/ or outcome of fraud, misrepresentation and undue
influence.

20. That the plaintiff further submits that there was no talk of
transfer of the suit properties ever held between the father of the
plaintiff with the defendant no-1. There was indeed no offer and
acceptance. The said so-called deed of gift is procured by
practising fraud, misrepresentation etc. The said deed is never
acted upon and never legally attested and executed. The said
deed of gift is absolutely void ab-initio. The executant never saw
the attesting witnesses to sign over the deed and the attesting
witnesses never saw the executant to sign over the deed. The
donor never put his signature over the deed by understanding
the purport of the deed. Rather he had put his signature thinking
it to be a power of attorney to look after his properties. The father
of the plaintiff has much love & affection towards this plaintiff.
He in his lifetime never thought to deprive the plaintiff.

Page 9 of 16
 [10]

21. That the details of fraud as perpetrated and as follows:-

a) Bibhu Pada Das was aged about 88 years in the relevant
time when the alleged Deed was executed.
b) Bibhu Pada Das suffered from short eye sight.
c) Bibhu Pada Das was suffering from Diabetes, Heart
decease and other ailments and was suffering from few
psychological problems and did not have the capacity to
understand the content of the said Deed and never
executed any such documents of his own or allowed
anybody to volunteer.
d) The defendant no-1 in collusion with the identifier,
attesting witness and scribe of the deed make the father of
the plaintiff to sign over the deed and later converted it
into impugned gift deed.
e) Bibhu Pada Das never engaged any person to create or
draft such Deed.
f) The witnesses appearing in the deed are the henchmen of
the defendant No.1.

22. That the plaintiff states that even of it is assumed though not
admitted had there been a family Gift Deed in favour of
defendant No.1, the same could have been disclosed at least
during the lifetime of the mothers and even thereafter in the
year 2013 when the mother died and also on several meeting
which the brother sat for over differ issues for the benefits of the
family including property.

23. That the plaintiff states that in order to suppress the illegal act
the defendant No.1 in a hush up matters sold the property to
defendant Nos. 2 and 3 jointly by virtue of the Deed of
Conveyance dated 6th October, 2018, registered before the
Additional Registrar, Assurance – III, Kolkata recorded in Book

Page 10 of 16
 [11]

No. I, Volume No. 1903-2018, Page from 101949 to 1019794,

Being No. 190302579 for the year 2018. The said deed is made
illegally and no consideration price is paid.

24. That the plaintiff states that the aforesaid by defendant No.1
does not create any right title in favour of the defendant Nos.2
and 3 as the same is an act of fraud, misrepresentation etc. The
defendants no-2 & 3 are strangers in the (A) suit property and
they are not family members of the plaintiff. The (A) suit
property is within the Bastu block of the plaintiff and the
presence of the defendants no-2 & 3 would cause irreparable
loss and injury to the family privacy of the plaintiff.

25. That the plaintiff states that the defendant Nos.1 to 3 on the
basis of the aforesaid so called Sale Deed, the defendant Nos.2
and 3 are trying to disturb the possession of the plaintiff by
trying to enter therein with their men and agent for the purpose
of making the construction.

26. That the plaintiff states that for all intents and purpose of the
plaintiff and proforma defendants are is possession by the said
property in the entirety apart the plaintiff is also co-sharer of the
same.

27. That the plaintiff states that in the facts and

circumstances stated above the plaintiff is entitled to declaration
that the so-called Deed of Gift dated 23 rd December, 1998
allegedly stated to have been executed by Bibhu Pada Das is an
a manufactured documents created by acts of fraud,
misrepresentation etc. and that same never created any right
title interest in favour of defendant no.1 being a void document.
The plaintiff is also entitled to a further declaration that the

Page 11 of 16
 [12]

defendant Nos. 2 and 3 does not acquire any right, title, interest
over the suit property by dint of purchase in terms of Deed of
Conveyance dated 6th October, 2018 executed by defendant
No.1. The plaintiff is also entitled to a decree for permanent
injunction restraining the defendant Nos.2 and 3 from
disturbing the peaceful possession of the suit property.

28. That the principal defendants no-2/3 in collusion with

defendant no-1 are now trying to change nature and
character of the scheduled I, scheduled II & (A) suit land by
erecting pucca construction without conversion of land into
Bastu and without sanction building plan from appropriate
authority for which it is necessary to restrain the opposite
parties from doing such illegal acts by an order of ad-interim
as well as temporary injunction. Moreover the entry of the
principal defendants no-2 & 3 over the (A) suit property would
cause prejudice to the family privacy of the plaintiff.

29. The cause of action for the suit arose on 26/05/2019 in Mouza-
Manoharchawk, under PS- Khejuri, within the jurisdiction of the
Ld. Court when the plaintiff for the first time came to know
about the so-called deed of gift and the sale deed and thereafter
on 27/05/2019 when the certified copy of impugned deed of gift
is obtained by the plaintiff and the carrying on day to day at the
suit property as mentioned in the schedule.

30. For the purpose of court fees & jurisdiction the suit is valued at
Rs.62, 00/- and the plaintiff pays court fees accordingly and
under takes to file additional on the same as and when may be
directed.

Hence the plaintiff prays for:

Page 12 of 16
 [13]

a) Declaration that the so-called

Deed of Gift dated 23 rd December,
1998 recorded therein vide Book
No. I , Volume No.84, Pages 126
to 129, Being No.3317 for the
year 2000, being allegedly stated
to have been executed by Bibhu
Pada Das is a manufactured
document created by fraud,
misrepresentation, undue
influence etc. and that the same
never created any title or any
right in favour of defendant No.1
being a void documents;

b) Declaration that defendants Nos.

2 and 3 do not acquire any right
title and interest over the suit
property by dint of purchase in
terms of the Deed of Conveyance
dated 6th October, 2018,
registered before the Additional
Registrar, Assurance – III, Kolkata
recorded in Book No. I, Volume
No. 1903-2018, Page from
101949 to 1019794, Being No.
190302579 for the year 2018

c) Decree for permanent injunction

restraining the defendant Nos.1, 2
and 3 and/or from disturbing the

Page 13 of 16
 [14]

peaceful ejmal possession of the

plaintiff over the (A) suit property
and also from causing any further
transfer;

d) Injunction;
e) Receiver;
f) Cost of suit
g) Such other relief or reliefs as per
equity and law;

SCHEDULE PART - I
ALL THAT piece and parcel of land measuring about 22.5 decimal a
little more or less at R.S & L.R. Dag No.86 under R.S. Khatiyan No. 67
& L.R. Khatiyan No.115 lying and situated under Mouza
Manoharchawk, J.L. No.61,Touzi No. 2935, P.S. Khejuri, Dist. Purba
Medinipur, PIN 721431 butted and bounded as follows :
ON THE NORTH : Dag No.85
ON THE SOUTH : Dag No.89
ON THE EAST : Dag No.87
ON THE WEST : Dag No.86

SCHEDULE PART - II
ALL THAT piece and parcel of land measuring about 3 decimal a little
more or less out of 6 decimal at R.S & L.R. Dag No.89 under R.S.
Khatiyan No. 67 & L.R. Khatiyan No.115 lying and situated under
Mouza Manoharchak, J.L.No.61 ,Touzi No. 2935, P.S. Khejuri, Dist.
Purba Medinipur, PIN 721431 butted and bounded as follows :
ON THE NORTH : Dag No.86
ON THE SOUTH : Road
ON THE EAST : Dag No.88
ON THE WEST : Rest of Dag No.89

Page 14 of 16
 [15]

The details in the Schedule Part - I & II are obtained from the Deed of
Gift dated 23rd December,1998 which was duly registered in the office
at sub-registrar, Khejuri and recorded therein vide Book No. I, Volume
No.84, Pages 126 to 129, Being No.3317 for the year 2000.

(A) Scheduled property

Dist.- Purba Medinipur

PS- Khejuri,
Mouza- Manoharchawk, J. L. No- 61,
Khatiyan No- 67, 234, 235
LR Plot No- 86 “Joljami” measuring about 45 dec. of land
LR Plot No- 89 “Joljami” measuring about 06 dec. of land

Affidavit on behalf of Plaintiff

I, Amitava Das, aged about 56 years, Son of Lt. Bibhupada Das, by

faith- Hindu, by occupation- ………………………, residing at

temporarily residing at 115 Potong Pasir, Avenue 1, Singapore – 350

115 and also having an permanent address at 255 N.S.C Bose Road,

Maitri Apartment, Flat 203, Kolkata-700047do hereby solemnly affirm

and declare as follows:- 

1) That I am the plaintiff of this case am well conversant with the facts and

circumstances of this case. Hence I am competent to swear this affidavit.

2) That the plaint has been drafted under my instructions and the contents of the

plaint contained herein, except the legal averments contained herein, are true and

Page 15 of 16
 [16]

correct to the best of my knowledge, information & belief. The legal averments

contained herein are true and correct on the basis of legal advice, received by me and

believed by me to be true and correct. The contents of this plaint may kindly be read

as part of this affidavit.

3) That I further solemnly affirm and declare that no part of it is false and nothing

material has been concealed therefrom.

Prepared, Read over & Verification

explained in my chamber
The statement made hereinabove are true to the

best of my knowledge & belief and I have

understood the same and contents of the same

are true to my knowledge and belief and no part

Advocate
of it is false and no material facts have been

concealed therefrom.

……..………………….………………

Deponent

Page 16 of 16