Plaintiff Can Seek Declaration Of Title Without Seeking Cancellation Of Sale Deed Executed By Another Party : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that a plaintiff seeking a declaration of title over a property is not required to specifically seek the cancellation of a sale deed executed by another party over the same property as per Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (“SRA”).

The Court said that a declaration sought by a plaintiff as per Section 34 of the SRA would not become non-maintainable merely because he did not seek the "further relief" of cancellation of the sale deed executed by another party with whom the plaintiff has no privity of contract. In other words, the Court said that a declaration of title is as good as relief seeking cancellation of the sale deed.

"The words used in proviso to Section 34 are “further relief” and “no other relief”. Since, a further relief must flow necessarily from the relief of declaration, if such further relief is remote and is not connected in any way with the cause of action which has accrued in favour of the plaintiffs, then there is no need to claim a further relief and the proviso to Section 34 will not be a bar. All that the proviso forbids is a suit for pure declaration without necessary relief where the plaintiff being able to seek such a relief, has omitted to do so. The proviso must not be construed in a manner which compels the plaintiff to sue for any and all the reliefs which could possibly be granted to him. The plaintiff must not be debarred from obtaining a relief that he wants for the reason that he has failed to seek a relief which is not directly flowing from the relief of declaration already sought for," the judgment stated.

Holding thus, the bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court's decision, thereby restoring the trial court's ruling, which upheld the Gift Deed in favor of the Appellants/Plaintiffs and declared the Sale Deed executed in favor of the Respondents/Defendants as void. The High Court dismissed the suit because the plaintiff failed to seek cancellation of the sale deed of the same property executed in the defendant's favor.

Setting aside the High Court's decision, the judgment authored by Justice Pardiwala said:

“Therefore, the High Court having concurred with the Courts below on the legality and validity of the Gift Deed should not have dismissed the suit only on the ground that the plaintiff failed to pray for cancellation of the sale deed. The High Court should have kept the settled position of law in mind that the declaration of title is as good as a relief of cancellation of the sale deed or at least, a declaration that the sale deed is not binding on the plaintiff being void and thus non-est.”

The Court explained : "Where the executant of a deed wants it to be annulled, he has to seek cancellation of the deed under Section 31 of the Act, 1963. But if a non-executant seeks annulment of a deed, he has to only seek a declaration that the deed is invalid, or non est, or illegal or that it is not binding on him." 

Referencing Suhrid Singh alias Sardool Singh v. Randhir Singh & Ors. (2010) 12 SCC 112, the Court, with an illustration's help, explained why the plaintiff is not required to seek cancellation of the sale deed, but instead required to seek a declaration of title.

“The difference between a prayer for cancellation and declaration in regard to a deed of transfer/conveyance, can be brought out by the following illustration relating to 'A' and 'B' ─ two brothers. 'A' executes a sale deed in favour of 'C'. Subsequently 'A' wants to avoid the sale. 'A' has to sue for cancellation of the deed. On the other hand, if 'B', who is not the executant of the deed, wants to avoid it, he has to sue for a declaration that the deed executed by 'A' is invalid/void and non est/ illegal and he is not bound by it. In essence, both may be suing to have the deed set aside or declared as non-binding.”, the court explained.

In essence, the Court said that “a plaintiff who is not a party to a decree or a document (for instance the sale deed executed by defendants in the present case), is not obligated to sue for its cancellation. This is because such an instrument would neither be likely to affect the title of the plaintiff nor be binding on him.”

The Court's observation was based on the fact that it is logically impossible for the plaintiff to seek cancellation of the document to which he was not a party. Therefore, the High Court erred in dismissing the suit solely because the cancellation of the sale deed executed in the respondents/defendant was not sought by the Appellant/plaintiff, the court said.

Accordingly, the court allowed the appeal and restored the trial court's decision finding the sale deed void ab initio upon declaration of title in the Appellant's favor.

Case Title: HUSSAIN AHMED CHOUDHURY & ORS. Versus HABIBUR RAHMAN (DEAD) THROUGH LRs & ORS.

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 466

Click here to read/download the judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Parthiv K. Goswami, Sr. Adv. Ms. Diksha Rai, AOR Ms. Atiga Singh, Adv. Ms. Apurva Sachdev, Adv. Mr. Piyush Vyas, Adv. Ms. Purvat Wali, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Jaiswal, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Avijit Roy, AOR

Related Report : Sec.31 Specific Relief Act | Not Mandatory For Third Party, Against Whom A Sale Deed Is Void, To Seek Its Cancellation : Supreme Court