HUSSAIN AHMED CHOUDHURY & ORS. [APPELLANTS] Vs. HABIBUR RAHMAN (DEAD) THROUGH LRs & ORS. [RESPONDENTS]
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5470 OF 2025 (Arising from SLP (C) No. 3056 OF 2016)
(2JB, J.B. PARDIWALA and R. MAHADEVAN JJ., delivered by J.B. PARDIWALA, J.)
In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court of India held that a plaintiff seeking a declaration of title over a property is not obligated to seek the cancellation of a sale deed executed by another party. This clarification came in a case where the plaintiff sought a declaration of title without challenging the validity of a sale deed executed in favor of the defendant. The Court ruled that such a suit is maintainable under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, and does not require the plaintiff to invoke Section 31, which deals with cancellation of instruments.
A bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan allowed an appeal against a High Court decision that had dismissed the plaintiff’s suit due to the absence of a prayer for cancellation of the sale deed. The trial court had initially upheld a Gift Deed in favor of the plaintiffs and declared the defendant’s sale deed void. However, the High Court overturned this on the technical ground that the plaintiff had not sought the cancellation of the sale deed.
The Supreme Court clarified that Section 34 allows for a declaration of legal rights and that the proviso does not require a plaintiff to seek all possible consequential reliefs, only those directly flowing from the primary declaration. The Court emphasized that the absence of a cancellation prayer does not bar a declaration suit when the plaintiff has no privity of contract with the defendant or was not a party to the sale deed.
The Court illustrated the distinction using a hypothetical: If ‘A’ executes a sale deed in favor of ‘C’, and later wishes to annul it, ‘A’ must seek cancellation. However, if ‘B’, a third party, contests the deed’s validity, he needs only a declaration that the deed is void or non-binding on him. This principle recognizes the impracticality of forcing a non-executant to cancel a document they were never party to.
In this case, the Appellants were not parties to the sale deed in question. Hence, seeking its cancellation under Section 31 was unnecessary. Instead, the declaration of title itself sufficed to establish that the sale deed was void ab initio with respect to them. The Court concluded that the High Court erred by insisting on cancellation and ignoring the established legal principle that a declaration of title is sufficient in such circumstances.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s ruling and restored the trial court’s verdict, reinforcing the view that non-executants can challenge deeds affecting their interests merely through a declaration of title, without needing to cancel those deeds. This judgment significantly clarifies the application of Sections 31 and 34 of the Specific Relief Act and offers greater flexibility to plaintiffs in property disputes.
