MANIK LAL JAISWARA Vs. MONJU DEVI @ MANJU DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant second appeal arises from a judgment and decree dated 28th February, 2019, passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, 1st Court, Serampore, Hooghly in Title Apeal No. 90 of 2016 reversing the judgment and decree dated 7th May, 2016 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, 1st Court, Serampore in Title Suit No. 21/2014.

(2.) The parties are related to each other which is discernible from the facts pleaded in the plaint. The plaintiff no. 1 is the father of the defendant no.1 and father-in-law of the defendant no. 2 whereas the remaining plaintiffs are the sons and daughters of the plaintiff no. 1. The plaintiffs jointly filed a suit for declaration that the deed of conveyance being no. 1774 for the year 2009 registered with Additional Registrar of Assurances III in favour of the first defendant is fraudulent, invalid and inoperative. The second relief claimed in the plaint further relates to a declaration that the defendants did not acquire any right, title and interest on the basis of the purported deed of conveyance.

(3.) The facts pleaded in the plaint are that the plaintiffs along with one Ramrati Devi were the owner of the property being the subject matter of the suit. The defendant no. 1 being the daughter of the plaintiff no. 1 is all along residing in her matrimonial house. There was no intention on the part of the plaintiffs to transfer and/or alienate the property as they were all along residing therein, but a proposal was made from the defendants where the defendant no. 2 intended to secure a loan from the bank and requested the plaintiffs along with the Ramrati Devi to execute the deed of sale with clear stipulation that after such crisis is over they would revert the said property by executing a deed of gift. Since, the relation between the parties were cordial and they never sensed any foul intention, executed a purported deed of sale in favour of the defendant no.1. Subsequently, the plaintiffs wanted the execution and registration of the deed of gift by the defendant no. 1 who refused to honour such stipulation and tried to sell the property to the third party.