Deed Cancellation Suit in Bangladesh 2026: Section 39, Limitation, Court Fees and Forged Deeds

Deed cancellation suit Bangladesh law in 2026: who can sue and how

A deed cancellation suit Bangladesh courts entertain under section 39 of the Specific Relief Act 1877 is the remedy for an owner facing a registered sale deed, heba or power of attorney that should never have existed or should never have bound them. The relief sounds simple: the court declares the instrument void or voidable and orders it delivered up and cancelled. In practice the suit is won or lost on four technical choices made before the plaint is filed: whether the deed is void or merely voidable, whether the plaintiff must ask for cancellation or only a declaration, which limitation article governs, and how the claim is valued for court fees.

This guide is about the cancellation claim itself. It explains section 39 and its companion provisions, the difference between void and voidable deeds, forged deeds and the Land Crime Prevention and Remedy Act 2023, Article 91 and the other limitation clocks, court fees and the forum after the 2026 renaming of the civil courts, and the registration and handwriting evidence that decides these cases. Possession, mutation and the wider land dispute toolkit are covered in companion TRW guides, linked where they matter.

Summary: Section 39 lets a person against whom a written instrument is void or voidable sue to have it adjudged so and cancelled, if leaving it outstanding may cause serious injury. The suit must usually be filed within three years of learning the facts under Article 91 of the Limitation Act 1908, is valued and stamped on the plaintiff's own valuation, and turns on overcoming the strong presumption that a registered deed is genuine. A cancellation decree is sent to the registration office, and a court finding of forgery must now also be recorded in the land records under the Land Crime Prevention and Remedy Act 2023.

Key point: The three-year clock under Article 91 runs from the date the plaintiff learned the facts, not from the date of the deed, and courts test that date against the evidence. In August 2025 the High Court Division upheld the dismissal of a suit where the plaintiff pleaded knowledge in 2013 but admitted in the witness box that he had known of the deed since 2001.

At a glance

Swipe or scroll →

Table of Contents

What a deed cancellation suit Bangladesh law allows under section 39

Chapter V of the Specific Relief Act 1877 deals with the cancellation of instruments. Section 39 provides that any person against whom a written instrument is void or voidable, and who has a reasonable apprehension that the instrument, if left outstanding, may cause them serious injury, may sue to have it adjudged void or voidable; the court may, in its discretion, so adjudge it and order it to be delivered up and cancelled.[1] The section is not limited to land. Its illustrations include an insurance policy procured by fraud and bills of exchange, but in Bangladesh its daily use is against registered kabala (sale) deeds, heba and heba-bil-ewaz deeds, powers of attorney and leases.

The three conditions

Every plaint must establish three things. First, the instrument must be void or voidable against the plaintiff. Second, the plaintiff must have a reasonable apprehension that the instrument, left outstanding, may be used against them. Third, the threatened injury must be serious. In land cases the second and third conditions are usually met by the deed itself: a registered transfer can support a mutation, a sale to a third party, a mortgage or a possession claim. The real contest is the first condition, and the burden of proving it lies on the plaintiff.

One of the statutory illustrations is directly in point. Where a person in possession of land produces a forged instrument stating that an earlier conveyance was made in trust for him, the true successor may obtain cancellation of the forged instrument.[1] The forged deed is a nullity, but the law still allows the injured owner to have it removed because of the damage it can do while it remains on the record.

What the decree actually does

Where the instrument has been registered under the Registration Act 1908, the court must send a copy of its decree to the officer in whose office the instrument was registered, and that officer must note the fact of cancellation on the copy of the instrument held in the registration books.[1] That is the practical value of a deed cancellation suit Bangladesh owners sometimes overlook: a declaration binds only the parties, but a cancellation decree marks the register itself, so anyone who later inspects the volume sees that the deed has been cancelled.

Partial cancellation, compensation and the declaration proviso

Section 40 allows the court, where an instrument evidences different rights or obligations, to cancel it in part and let it stand for the rest. Section 41 allows the court, when it orders cancellation, to require the successful party to make any compensation to the other that justice requires.[1] Section 41 matters in voidable-deed cases, where the plaintiff may have received consideration that equity expects to be returned. Section 42 sits alongside: a person entitled to a right in property may sue for a declaration against anyone denying it, but no declaration will be made where the plaintiff, able to seek further relief, omits to do so.[1]

Void or voidable: why the classification decides the case

The single most important analytical step in a deed cancellation suit Bangladesh practitioners take is classifying the defect. A voidable deed is valid until it is set aside; the person whose consent was vitiated must act to avoid it. A void deed never had legal effect at all, and a person who was not a party to it may treat it as a nullity. The classification drives who must sue, what relief must be claimed, which limitation article applies and how the suit is valued.

Voidable deeds: consent obtained by fraud, coercion or undue influence

A deed is voidable where the executant actually signed and registered it, but their consent was obtained by fraud, misrepresentation, coercion or undue influence. Only the executant, or those claiming through them, can attack such a deed, and they must sue to have it set aside, because until then it operates. The evidential hill is steep. In Azahar Sharif v Abdul Bareque (30 April 2026) executants who alleged undue influence and coercion lost because the Sub-Registrar's endorsement under section 60 of the Registration Act is strong presumptive evidence that the deed was explained to them, that they admitted execution and receipt of consideration, and that the registration was regular.[13]

The High Court Division held that the presumption can be rebutted only by strong evidence that a fraud was committed on the Sub-Registrar, and the plaintiffs had made no allegation against the registration procedure at all.[13] The lesson for an executant is to plead, with particulars, exactly what happened at the registry: who attended, who identified the executant, what was said and what was paid. A general plea of "fraud" or "pressure" will not displace a registration endorsement.

Void deeds: forgery, impersonation, no title and registration fraud

A deed is void where the apparent executant never executed it, where an impostor appeared in their place, where the transferor had no title to pass, or where the law itself declares the transfer void. Section 53C of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 is a statutory example: no immoveable property may be sold by a person unless their name, or for inherited property their predecessor's name, appears in the latest khatian prepared under the State Acquisition and Tenancy Act 1950, and any sale made otherwise is void.[8]

Registration fraud can also make a deed void. In Most Anar Haque Choudhury v Most Ruli Begum (2 August 2026) the defendants included a fictitious parcel in a different sub-district solely to give a Sub-Registrar territorial jurisdiction under section 28 of the Registration Act. Applying the Appellate Division's decision in Syed Kausar Ali v Gahar Kazi, 37 DLR (AD) 177, the High Court Division held that the device vitiated the registration and that the deed was void, inoperative and not binding on the plaintiffs, who were not parties to it.[14]

Cancellation or declaration: is the plaintiff a party to the deed?

The practical rule follows from the classification. An executant who wants to escape a deed they signed needs cancellation, because the deed binds them until it is set aside. A stranger to the deed, such as an heir whose share was sold by a co-heir or an owner whose signature was forged, is not bound by it and may instead seek a declaration that the deed is void, inoperative and not binding on them, joined with a declaration of their own title. That was the form of relief granted in the 2026 case on registration fraud.[14]

Two cautions apply. A stranger who wants the register itself marked should still pray for cancellation, because only a cancellation decree is sent to the registration office under section 39.[1] And the section 42 proviso means a stranger out of possession cannot stop at a bare declaration: recovery of possession must be claimed as consequential relief, which TRW's guide to recovery of possession in Bangladesh covers in detail.[1]

Forged deeds: the civil suit and the Land Crime Act 2023

A forged deed now engages two parallel bodies of law, and a deed cancellation suit Bangladesh plaintiffs bring against a forgery should be planned with both in view. The civil court decides title and cancels the instrument; the criminal court punishes the forgery. Since the Land Crime Prevention and Remedy Act 2023, which took effect on 18 September 2023, the criminal side has a dedicated statute for land documents, and its provisions are expressly in addition to, not in derogation of, other laws.[5] The Act's restoration and possession provisions are analysed in our guide on how to resolve land disputes in Bangladesh; what matters here is how it interacts with a cancellation claim.

What the Act treats as land forgery and land fraud

Section 5 defines land forgery offences in connection with transfer, survey, record updating or land management. They include making a false document or part of one with intent to cause harm, support a claim or defraud; dishonestly making, signing or sealing a document as if by a person who did not make it, or at a time when it was not made; dishonestly altering a material part of a document after execution; and dishonestly compelling a person to sign, seal or alter a document. Each is punishable with up to seven years' imprisonment and a fine.[5]

Section 4 covers land fraud, with the same maximum penalty. It includes presenting another's land as one's own, transferring land while concealing information, transferring more land than one owns, transferring land by impersonating another person or knowingly substituting one person for another, signing or executing a deed containing false statements, and giving false information to an authority.[5] The Act's definition of a deed is wide: it includes bayna deeds, receipts, powers of attorney, maps and sketches, khatians, land development tax receipts, allotment letters, no-objection certificates and affidavits.[5]

Section 6: forgery findings go onto the land records

Section 6(1) is the provision that most directly affects a deed cancellation suit Bangladesh litigants bring. Where, in a case under the 2023 Act or under any other law in force, a document is proved to have been created or prepared by fraud or forgery, the court must send a copy of its judgment or order to the Deputy Commissioner and other relevant authorities and direct that the finding be recorded in the relevant files, registers and records.[5] A civil judgment that finds a deed forged therefore travels beyond the sub-registry note required by section 39. Plaintiffs should ask the court, in the prayer and at the decree stage, to make the section 6(1) direction expressly.

Section 6(2) works earlier in the chain. Where an authority handling transfer, survey, registration or record updating has reasonable grounds to believe a document placed before it is fraudulent or forged, it must send the matter, with details, to the appropriate criminal court for trial.[5] An objection lodged in a mutation hearing or at the sub-registry can therefore trigger a prosecution without a private complaint.

Running the criminal and civil routes together

Offences under the 2023 Act are cognizable; land fraud and land forgery under sections 4 and 5 are non-bailable; they are tried by a first-class Judicial Magistrate or Metropolitan Magistrate; the trial must be completed within 180 days of receipt of the case; and the criminal court may order compensation for financial loss.[5] Those features give a complainant real leverage, but leverage is not title. Only the civil court can cancel the deed and declare who owns the land.

Sequencing needs care once the deed is an exhibit in a civil suit. Section 195(1)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure bars a court from taking cognizance of forgery offences under sections 463 and 471 of the Penal Code, among others, when committed by a party to a proceeding in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in that proceeding, except on a written complaint by that court; a Sub-Registrar is not a court for this purpose.[9] Section 476 lets the civil court, after a preliminary inquiry, record a finding and send its own complaint to a first-class Magistrate.[9]

Whether section 195 also restricts a private complaint under the 2023 Act's own forgery offence, once the deed is before a civil court, is not yet settled in any reported decision we have found. The prudent course is to lodge any criminal complaint before the deed is exhibited in civil proceedings, or to ask the civil court to complain under section 476. A complaint against a co-heir in a family dispute is rarely wise: if it fails, it hands the defendant a finding to use in the civil suit.

Limitation: Article 91 and the other clocks

Limitation is where a deed cancellation suit Bangladesh plaintiffs file is most often lost, before any evidence is heard. The First Schedule to the Limitation Act 1908 contains several articles that can apply to a deed, and the correct one depends on the relief claimed and on whether the deed is void or voidable.

Article 91: three years from knowledge

Article 91 governs a suit to cancel or set aside an instrument not otherwise provided for. The period is three years, running from when the facts entitling the plaintiff to have the instrument cancelled or set aside become known to them.[2] It is the default article for a deed cancellation suit Bangladesh executants bring against voidable deeds, and it is routinely pleaded against strangers seeking cancellation too.

Because time runs from knowledge, the plaint must state when and how the plaintiff learned of the deed, and the evidence must support that date. In Shahjahan Howlader v Abdul Quader Biswas (18 August 2025) the plaintiffs sued in 2013 to cancel a heba-bil-ewaz deed executed in 1961, pleading knowledge on 1 June 2013. The plaintiff admitted in his deposition that he had known of the deed since 2001, and the High Court Division upheld the concurrent finding that the suit, filed twelve years after knowledge, was barred under Article 91.[11]

Articles 92 and 93: declaring a deed forged

Two articles deal specifically with forgery. Article 92 gives three years to sue for a declaration that an instrument issued or registered is forged, running from when the issue or registration becomes known to the plaintiff. Article 93 gives three years to declare the forgery of an instrument attempted to be enforced against the plaintiff, running from the date of the attempt.[2] Article 93 can rescue an owner who learned of a forged deed long ago but faced no attempt to use it until recently, for example in a mutation application or an eviction notice.

Article 95 and Article 120

Where the forged or fraudulent instrument has already been carried into a decree, such as a collusive compromise decree, Article 95 applies: three years to set aside a decree obtained by fraud, running from when the fraud becomes known to the party wronged.[2] Article 120 is the residuary article: six years from when the right to sue accrues, for suits for which no other period is provided.[2] It is often invoked for declaratory suits by strangers, but it is a fallback, not a safe harbour; a court that classifies the claim as one for cancellation will apply Article 91.

The table below summarises the clocks. On a phone, scroll it sideways.

Two practical rules follow. Treat the date of the earliest certified copy, mutation notice or khatian entry in the plaintiff's family as the likely knowledge date, because the defendant will. And where the deed is void and the plaintiff is out of possession, remember that the possession claim carries its own twelve-year clock, explained in our recovery of possession guide.

Court fees, valuation and the right court

Court fees in a deed cancellation suit Bangladesh plaintiffs file are governed by the Court-fees Act 1870, and the computation turns on how the relief is framed. Getting it wrong does not usually end the suit at once, but it invites a valuation dispute, delay and, if the deficit is not made good, dismissal.

Declaration with consequential relief: ad valorem on the plaintiff's valuation

Under section 7(iv)(c), a suit to obtain a declaratory decree or order where consequential relief is prayed is charged according to the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint, subject to section 8C. The plaintiff must state that valuation, and it cannot be set so low as to attract a fee of less than Tk 200.[3] Cancellation of a deed is ordinarily pleaded as consequential relief on a declaration that the deed is void and not binding, so the ad valorem scale in Schedule I applies. The schedule substituted in 2010 caps the fee on a plaint or memorandum of appeal at Tk 35,000.[4]

Valuation is not purely the plaintiff's choice. The court must record a finding on the sufficiency of the fee, may revise a wrong valuation under section 8C after an inquiry, and stays the suit until any deficit is paid; if it is not paid in time, the suit is dismissed. An appellate or revisional court that considers the valuation wrongly decided to the detriment of the revenue can require the additional fee.[3] A token valuation of a deed worth several crore taka is therefore a false economy.

Bare declaration and possession

A declaratory decree where no consequential relief is prayed attracts a fixed fee under Schedule II.[4] That route suits a stranger in possession who wants only a declaration that a forged deed does not bind them, but it cannot be used to avoid the ad valorem fee where further relief is available, because of the section 42 proviso.[1] Where possession is also claimed, section 7(v) values that relief by reference to the market value of the land or a multiple of its net profits, whichever is greater.[3]

Which court: the 2026 renaming

The valuation also fixes the forum. The Civil Courts (Amendment) Act 2026 (Act No 12 of 2026), with effect from 2 November 2025, renamed Assistant Judges as Civil Judges and Senior Assistant Judges as Senior Civil Judges. Their pecuniary jurisdiction extends to suits valued up to Tk 15 lakh and Tk 25 lakh respectively, and the Joint District Judge's original jurisdiction extends to all suits cognizable by the civil courts.[10] Plaints and cause titles prepared from older templates should use the new court names.

Evidence in a deed cancellation suit Bangladesh courts decide

Cancellation cases are overwhelmingly documents cases. The plaintiff starts behind, because the law presumes regularity in a registered deed, and must build a record that explains why that presumption should not hold.

The presumption of registration

Under section 60 of the Registration Act 1908, the registering officer endorses a certificate of registration, signed, sealed and dated, and that certificate is admissible to prove that the document was duly registered and that the facts in the section 59 endorsements occurred as stated.[7] The High Court Division treats the endorsement as strong presumptive evidence that the deed was explained to the executant, who admitted execution and consideration, and that the whole proceeding was regular.[13] The presumption is rebuttable, but only by evidence that goes to the registration itself.

Using the registry's own records

The registry is also the plaintiff's best source of rebuttal evidence. Book 1, the register of non-testamentary documents relating to immoveable property, and its indexes are open to inspection by any person on payment of the fee, and copies of entries must be given to anyone who applies.[7] Since the 2004 amendments, an instrument of transfer must carry photographs of both the executant and the recipient, with their signatures and left thumb impressions across the photographs.[7]

A sale or heba deed must also attach the latest khatian in the transferor's or predecessor's name, a map, a brief description of ownership for the last 25 years and the executant's affidavit that the property has not already been transferred and that they hold lawful title.[7] Gaps or inconsistencies in those attachments, a photograph that does not match the alleged executant, or an identifier who is a stranger to them, are the facts that move a court. Summon the volume and the Sub-Registrar's records rather than relying on certified copies alone.

Handwriting and thumb impression experts

Section 45 of the Evidence Act 1872, as recast in 2022, makes relevant the opinion of a person specially skilled in questions of identity of handwriting, finger impressions and forensic evidence. Section 47 makes relevant the opinion of a person acquainted with the alleged writer's handwriting, and section 73 allows the court to compare a disputed signature, writing or finger impression with one admitted or proved to be genuine, and to direct a person present in court to write for comparison.[6]

Courts should not do the expert's job by eye. In Md Shafi Uddin v Md Moklesur Rahman Molla (20 May 2025) both lower courts compared the disputed thumb impression and signatures themselves and found them the same. Relying on the Appellate Division in Pranay Kumar v Makhlisor Rahman, 26 BLC (AD) 40, the High Court Division held that a thumb impression cannot be matched by the naked eye and that an expert is the right person, and remanded the appeal for expert examination.[12] Apply early for an expert, against admitted specimens from the same period, and do not wait for the appeal.

Attesting witnesses, old documents and the burden of proof

A registered deed, other than a will, can be proved without calling an attesting witness unless its execution by the apparent executant is specifically denied.[6] A written statement or plaint that contains only a general denial therefore lets the deed in easily; a specific denial of execution forces the beneficiary to call an attesting witness. Where a deed is thirty years old and comes from proper custody, the court may presume its signatures, execution and attestation, which makes early challenge all the more important.[6]

The burden of proof lies on the party who would fail if no evidence were given, so the plaintiff alleging forgery or fraud bears the initial onus.[6] The exception is section 111: where one party stands in a position of active confidence towards the other, the burden of proving the good faith of the transaction is on the party in that position.[6] That rule underpins the protection courts give to illiterate, elderly or secluded executants who transfer to those on whom they depend, but the relationship of confidence must be pleaded and proved, not assumed.

Procedure: from plaint to decree

The sequence below reflects how TRW prepares a deed cancellation suit Bangladesh courts will take seriously from the first hearing.

Swipe or scroll →

Before filing

Obtain certified copies of the impugned deed, its volume entry and every deed in the chain, the latest khatian and the mutation record. Check whether the beneficiary has already mutated the land or sold it on, because every subsequent transferee is a necessary party to a suit that seeks to cancel the root deed. Our guide to land ownership verification explains how to assemble the chain, and the Land Crime Act's khatian and tax precondition for registering further transfers is explained in our land mutation guide.

The plaint

The plaint should layer its prayers: a declaration of the plaintiff's title; a declaration that the impugned deed is void, forged or voidable and not binding; cancellation under section 39 with a direction to the registration office; a direction under section 6(1) of the Land Crime Act where forgery is alleged; recovery of possession where the plaintiff is out of possession; and a permanent injunction. Fraud, undue influence and coercion must be pleaded with dates and particulars, the date and means of knowledge stated precisely, and the valuation explained.

Interim protection

From the date the plaint is presented, the doctrine of lis pendens prevents any party from transferring the property so as to affect the rights of another party under the eventual decree, except with the court's authority.[8] That protects the plaintiff's claim but does not stop a sale happening. Where a further transfer, construction or mortgage is threatened, apply for a temporary injunction at once; our guide to temporary injunctions in Bangladesh sets out the test.

After the decree

A cancellation decree must be sent to the registration office, and the plaintiff should follow it there to confirm the note of cancellation is entered. The record of rights must then be corrected through a mutation or record correction application; TRW's guide to khatian correction covers that stage. Where the defendant is in possession, execution of the possession decree follows the procedure in the recovery of possession guide.

Mistakes that sink a deed cancellation suit Bangladesh plaintiffs bring

• Pleading a convenient knowledge date: a date contradicted by a certified copy, a mutation objection or the plaintiff's own cross-examination is the quickest route to dismissal under Article 91.[11]
• Attacking the deed without attacking the registration: a general plea of fraud will not displace a section 60 endorsement.[13]
• Leaving the expert evidence to the court: ask for a handwriting or thumb impression expert at trial, with admitted specimens.[12]
• Seeking a bare declaration while out of possession: the section 42 proviso bars it.[1]
• Under-valuing the relief: the court can revise the valuation and dismiss the suit if the deficit is not paid.[3]
• Omitting subsequent transferees: a decree against the first beneficiary alone does not bind those who bought from them.
• Filing the criminal case in the wrong order: once the deed is exhibited in the civil suit, section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure may require the civil court's own complaint.[9]

Each of these mistakes is avoidable with a careful review of the file before filing. TRW's real estate disputes practice handles cancellation, declaration and forgery litigation across the civil and criminal courts.

What to watch in 2026 and beyond

Three developments will shape cancellation litigation over the next year. First, the High Court Division continues to police registration fraud strictly, as the August 2026 decision on fictitious land used to manufacture territorial jurisdiction shows, while giving registered deeds a strong presumption where no such defect is proved.[13] [14] Second, the Land Crime Act's requirement that forgery findings be recorded with the Deputy Commissioner should, over time, make cancelled and forged deeds visible in the land records as well as the registry.[5]

Third, every cancellation suit will now come before the renamed Civil Judge and Senior Civil Judge courts or a Joint District Judge, so plaints, cause titles and valuations should be checked against the current names and pecuniary limits before filing.[10] If a deed in your chain, or a deed against your land, looks wrong, the first weeks after you learn of it matter most. Contact TRW to have the deed, the registry record and the limitation position reviewed, or explore our land records and khatian correction practice.

Frequently asked questions

What is a deed cancellation suit in Bangladesh?

It is a civil suit under section 39 of the Specific Relief Act 1877 asking the court to adjudge a written instrument void or voidable and order it delivered up and cancelled. If the deed is registered, the court sends its decree to the registration office to note the cancellation.[1]

What is the time limit to file a deed cancellation suit?

Usually three years under Article 91 of the Limitation Act 1908, running from when the facts entitling the plaintiff to cancellation become known to them. Articles 92, 93 and 95 set separate three-year periods for declaring forgery and setting aside decrees obtained by fraud.[2]

Do I need to cancel a forged deed if I never signed it?

A forged deed is void and does not bind a stranger to it, so a declaration that it is void and not binding can be enough. Praying for cancellation as well ensures the decree is sent to the registration office and noted in the register.[1] [14]

What is the difference between a void and a voidable deed?

A voidable deed was executed by the owner but their consent was obtained by fraud, coercion or undue influence; it operates until set aside. A void deed, such as a forgery or a sale by someone not recorded in the latest khatian, never had legal effect.[8] [13]

How much court fee is payable in a deed cancellation suit?

A declaration with consequential relief such as cancellation is charged ad valorem on the plaintiff's own valuation under section 7(iv)(c) of the Court-fees Act 1870, with the Schedule I fee on a plaint capped at Tk 35,000. The court can revise an undervaluation.[3] [4]

Which court hears a deed cancellation suit?

It depends on valuation. Since the 2026 amendment, Civil Judges hear suits up to Tk 15 lakh, Senior Civil Judges up to Tk 25 lakh, and Joint District Judges hear suits above that.[10]

Is a registered deed presumed to be genuine?

Yes. The section 60 registration endorsement is strong presumptive evidence that the deed was explained to and admitted by the executant and properly registered. It can be rebutted, but only by strong evidence, typically of fraud at the registry.[7] [13]

Can the court compare signatures without a handwriting expert?

Section 73 of the Evidence Act allows comparison, but the High Court Division has held that thumb impressions cannot reliably be matched by the naked eye and remanded a case where the courts below did so without an expert.[6] [12]

Can I file a criminal case for a forged land deed?

Yes. Land forgery under section 5 of the Land Crime Prevention and Remedy Act 2023 carries up to seven years' imprisonment and a fine, is non-bailable and must be tried within 180 days. Only the civil court, however, can cancel the deed and decide title.[5]

What happens after a deed is cancelled?

After a section 39 decree, the registration office notes the cancellation in its books, and where forgery is found the court sends its judgment to the Deputy Commissioner for the records. The owner should then correct the khatian through mutation and, if needed, execute a possession decree.[1] [5]