REAL ESTATE UPDATE
13 May 2025
Issue No. 04/25-26
SUPREME COURT CLARIFIES WHO CAN SEEK CANCELLATION OF SALE DEED
INTRODUCTION:
In its judgement dated 23rd April 2025 in SLP (C) No. 3056 of 2016, the Supreme Court has clarified that a person who is not a party to a sale deed is not obligated to seek its cancellation under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. Instead, such a person can seek a declaration that the deed is not binding on him.
BACKGROUND:
The dispute revolved around a Gift Deed dated 26.04.1958 executed by Haji Abdul Aziz Choudhury (grandfather of the plaintiff) in favour of his grandson, Siraj Uddin Choudhury. Since the plaintiff’s father had predeceased his grandfather, the Gift Deed was executed to ensure the plaintiff’s inheritance under Muslim law. The plaintiff’s title and possession of the suit property were challenged after a part of the land was allegedly sold in 1997 by the plaintiff’s uncles and aunts (defendant nos. 1 to 6) to defendant no. 14 (respondent no. 1 herein), who allegedly dispossessed the plaintiff during the pendency of the suit in 1999.
The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court upheld the plaintiff’s title based on the Gift Deed, recognizing valid execution and delivery of possession. However, the High Court, despite affirming the validity of the Gift Deed, dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiff failed to seek cancellation of the subsequent sale deed and was thus not entitled to declaratory relief.
JUDGMENT:
The Supreme Court held that the High Court committed a legal error in reversing the decree of the Trial and Appellate Courts solely on the ground that the plaintiff had not sought cancellation of the 1997 sale deed. The Court clarified the following key legal principles:
- A plaintiff who is not a party to a sale deed is not obligated to seek its cancellation under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. Instead, such a plaintiff can seek a declaration that the deed is not binding on him.
- The expression “any person” under Section 31 applies only to a party to the instrument or one claiming through such a party—not to strangers.
- The declaration of title granted by the Trial Court was adequate relief, and the omission to seek cancellation of a subsequent invalid instrument does not automatically bar the suit.
- The High Court’s reliance on the decisions in Md. Noorul Hoda and Abdul Rahim was misplaced as those cases involved parties bound by the instruments or decrees in question, unlike the present case.
Consequently, the Court restored the original judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and affirmed by the First Appellate Court, recognizing the plaintiff’s right, title, and possession over the suit property.
CONCLUSION:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s judgment dated 09.10.2015. It held that a person not party to a sale deed need not seek its cancellation to assert their superior title. The decree in favour of the plaintiff was restored, confirming his title based on the valid Gift Deed, and granting him recovery of possession over the suit land. No costs were awarded.
| Disclaimer: This newsletter is for general information only and not intended for any solicitation. Views expressed in this newsletter are as on date and not necessarily of V Law Partners (“VLaw”). While reasonable efforts have been taken to provide correct information, VLaw cannot and does not warrant or guarantee the accuracy of the information provided in the newsletter. Readers are advised not to rely solely on this information when making any decision.
Suggestions: If you do not wish to receive our newsletters or have any comments or suggestions for us, please write to us at – admin@vlawpartners.com |