The main legal point established is the need for clear and precise pleading of fraud and misrepresentation, the interpretation of jurisdictional provisions, and the distinction between permissive occupation and ownership rights.

JUDGMENT

Harish Tandon, J. - 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.

4. The moment the refusal to execute and register the deed of gift was sensed and realised the plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration that the purported deed of sale was obtained by practising fraud and misrepresentation and, therefore, does not convey any right, title and interest in defendant no. 1.

5. The defendants entered appearance and contested the suit by filing the written statement along with the counter claim. All the facts pleaded in the plaint have been denied. It is specifically contended that the plaintiffs wanted to sell the property to a third party and the moment such intention was made known to the defendants, the defendant no. 1 offered to purchase the said property at the market price upon consensus/agreement having arrived in this regard, the plaintiffs along with Ramrati Devi voluntarily executed the said deed of conveyance and got the same registered with the registering authority.

6. Since the relation between the parties were cordial they were permitted to stay in the property as a licensee and on being asked to vacate the premises they flatly refused to do so and thereafter the defendants revoked the licence and seek for a decree for recovery of possession by way of counter-claim.

7. The Trial Court though returned the finding on the issues but the main focus was made on the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the suit. Ultimately, the Court held that the suit is not maintainable for want of pecuniary jurisdiction and dismissed the suit. So far as, the finding on the counter-claim is concerned the Trial Court held that despite having no doubt over the ownership of the defendants in respect of the suit property it does not instil any confidence pertaining to the revocation of licence after a gap of nearly five years. The Trial Court proceeded to dismiss the cou