Supreme Court Restores Title Decree Based On Prior Gift Deed; Holds Plaintiff Was Not Obliged To Seek Cancellation Of Subsequent Sale Deed

A Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan heard an appeal arising from the Guwahati High Court’s common order of 9 October 2015 in two Regular Second Appeals, which had allowed the respondents’ second appeals and set aside the trial court decree in a title suit. The core issue before the Supreme Court was whether a plaintiff who established title under a prior registered gift deed was obliged to seek cancellation of a subsequent sale deed, failing which his suit for declaration of title and possession would fail.

The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s judgment and restored the decree of the Trial Court as affirmed by the First Appellate Court. The Bench held that a person who was not the executant of a subsequent instrument was not obligated to seek its cancellation under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, and that a declaratory suit under Section 34 could suffice to remove a cloud on title. The Court emphasised that the High Court erred in dismissing the plaintiff’s suit solely because he did not pray for cancellation of the sale deed. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “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 judgment also reiterated settled principles that Section 31 proceedings were in personam and that a non-executant could seek a declaration that a deed was “invalid/void and non est” as against him.

Background

The dispute arose out of a registered Gift Deed dated 26 April 1958 by Haji Abdul Aziz Choudhury in favour of his grandson Siraj Uddin Choudhury, conveying 8 bighas and 6 chatak, which included the suit land (about 4 bighas 5 katha 6 chatak). The present appellants were the legal heirs of the donee. In May 1997 a sale deed was executed in respect of part of the suit land in favour of respondent no.1; the plaintiff alleged that the vendors had no saleable title. The plaintiff filed Title Suit No. 88/1997 seeking declaration of title, possession and injunction; he was allegedly dispossessed on 8 May 1999 during the suit and amended his plaint to seek recovery of possession.

The Trial Court (judgment dated 21 May 2001) and the First Appellate Court (17 June 2006) found the 1958 Gift Deed valid, delivery of possession, and that the subsequent sale deed related to different land. The High Court, while agreeing that the gift deed was valid, allowed the second appeals and dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiff had not challenged the subsequent sale deed or sought its cancellation, relying on authorities on cancellation and declaration under the Specific Relief Act. The High Court observed, among other things, that “When there is no doubt as to the identity of the land and there is only mis-description that could be treated as a mere irregularity.” The Supreme Court examined Sections 31 and 34 of the Specific Relief Act, precedent including Muppudathi Pillai, Deccan Paper Mills and decisions on the distinction between cancellation and declaratory relief, and concluded that the High Court had erred in treating non‑prayer for cancellation by a non‑executant as fatal. The Supreme Court therefore restored the trial court decree in favour of the plaintiffs. No order as to costs was made and pending applications stood disposed of.

Case Details: Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 5470 of 2025 (Arising from SLP (C) No. 3056 of 2016) Case Title: Hussain Ahmed Choudhury & Ors. …Appellants Versus Habibur Rahman (Dead) through LRs & Ors. …Respondents Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Parthiv K. Goswami, Senior Counsel (for the appellants) For the Respondent(s): Mr. Avijit Roy, Counsel (for the respondents)