In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court has clarified that a plaintiff aiming to establish title over a property does not have to explicitly seek the cancellation of a sale deed executed by another party. This decision, based on Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, overturns the High Court’s ruling that had dismissed the plaintiff’s case for failing to request cancellation of the contested sale deed.
The Court stated that a suit for declaration of title does not lose its validity simply because the plaintiff does not seek additional relief, such as the cancellation of a sale deed executed by a third party. The judgment emphasized that such a declaration can, in itself, serve as a remedy equivalent to canceling the deed.
The ruling clarifies that while a party directly involved in the execution of a deed may need to seek its cancellation under Section 31 of the Act, a third party who is not a signatory to the deed can simply request a declaration that the deed is void, invalid, or non-binding. The Court reasoned that such a declaration of title is sufficient to address the dispute over the deed’s validity, without requiring the plaintiff to ask for cancellation.
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s decision, which had dismissed the plaintiff’s suit solely on the ground that the cancellation of the sale deed was not explicitly sought. The judgment reinforces that a plaintiff’s request for a declaration that a deed is not binding is an adequate remedy in cases where the plaintiff was not involved in its execution.
With this ruling, the Court restored the trial court’s decision, which had declared the sale deed void and upheld the plaintiff’s title to the property. The judgment underscores that the need for further relief must be closely tied to the cause of action, and it is not required if it does not directly flow from the declaration sought.
