A Person Who Is Not A Party To A Decree Or A Document, Is Not Obligated To Sue For Its Cancellation: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court reiterated that it is logically impossible for a person who is not a party to a document or a decree to ask for its cancellation.
Justice J.B. Pardiwala, Justice R. Mahadevan, Supreme Court
The Supreme Court clarified that a person who is not a party to a decree or a document, is not obligated to sue for its cancellation.
The Court set aside the decision of the Guwahati High Court, which, although it agreed with the Trial Court that the Gift Deed was validly executed, still allowed Appeals dismissing the Appellants' suit. This dismissal was due to the Appellants' absence of challenge against the subsequent sale deed.
A Bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan held that “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.”
Senior Advocate Parthiv K. Goswami appeared for the Appellants, while AOR Avijit Roy represented the Respondents.
Brief Facts
The Appellant claimed to have received the suit property through a Gift Deed from his grandfather in 1958. After the grandfather's death, the Respondents (brothers and sisters of the Appellant’s deceased father) allegedly sold a portion of the land.
The Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the Appellant, affirming the validity of the Gift Deed. The First Appellate Court upheld this decision. However, the High Court, while acknowledging the Gift Deed's validity, dismissed the Appellant’s suit due to the absence of a challenge to the subsequent sale deed.
Court’s Reasoning
The Supreme Court held that “filing a suit for cancellation of a sale deed and seeking a declaration that a particular document is inoperative as against the plaintiff are two distinct, separate suits. The plaintiff in the present case, not being the executant of the sale deed dated 05.05.1997 executed in favour of the respondent no. 1, was therefore, not obligated to sue for its cancellation under Section 31 of the Act, 1963. The question that remains is whether the plaintiff ought to have sought for a declaration that the sale deed dated 05.05.1997 was inoperative in so far as he is concerned or is not binding on him.”
The Bench also reiterated that it is logically impossible for a person who is not a party to a document or a decree to ask for its cancellation.
The Court explained that “a plaintiff who is not a party to a decree or a document, 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.” Further, the Bench emphsised, “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.”
The Court remarked, “One should not lose sight of the fact that a suit for declaration of title to be decided by a court takes within its fold, consideration of several factors as to how the plaintiff is entitled for declaration of title. In such cases, the plea of the defendants about the validity, enforceability and binding nature of any document defeating the title of the plaintiff have also to be considered. In such cases, the court naturally views the evidence on both sides leaving apart the frame of the suit.”
“Section 34 of the Act, 1963 is not exhaustive of the cases in which a declaratory decree may be made and the courts have power to grant such a decree independently of the requirements of the Section. Section 34 merely gives statutory recognition to a well-recognised type of declaratory relief and subjects it to a limitation, but it cannot be deemed to exhaust every kind of declaratory relief or to circumscribe the jurisdiction of courts to give declarations of right in appropriate cases falling outside Section 34. The circumstances in which a declaratory decree under Section 34 should be awarded is a matter of discretion depending upon the facts of each case,” the Bench explained.
Consequently, the Court ordered, “In the result, the appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned common judgment and order dated 09.10.2015 passed by the High Court in Regular Second Appeal No. 3 of 2007 and Regular Second Appeal No. 11 of 2007 is hereby set aside and the original decree passed by the Trial Court as affirmed by the First Appellate Court is hereby restored.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the Appeal.
Cause Title: Hussain Ahmed Choudhury & Ors. v. Habibur Rahman (Dead) Through Lrs & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 553)
Appearance:
Appellants: Senior Advocate Parthiv K. Goswami; AOR Diksha Rai; Advocates Atiga Singh, Apurva Sachdev, Piyush Vyas, Purvat Wali and Abhishek Jaiswal
Respondents: AOR Avijit Roy