2025 Supreme(SC) 698

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.B. PARDIWALA, R. MAHADEVAN, JJ.
Hussain Ahmed Choudhury and Others – Appellants
Versus
Habibur Rahman (Dead) through LRs. and – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 5470 of 2025 [Arising From SLP (C) No. 3056 of 2016]
Decided On : 23-04-2025

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) It is logically impossible for a person who is not a party to a document or to a decree to ask for its cancellation.
(2) Filing a suit for cancellation of a sale deed and seeking a declaration that a particular document is inoperative as against plaintiff are two distinct, separate suits.
(3) Suit for declaration of status or right – Courts have ample inherent powers and it is their duty to shape their declaration in such a way that they may operate to afford relief which justice of case requires – Circumstances in which a declaratory decree under Section 34 of Specific Relief Act, 1963 should be awarded is a matter of discretion depending upon facts of each case.

Headnote:

(A) Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Sections 31 and 34 – Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 54 – Title declaratory suit – Maintainability – Plaintiff who is not a party to a decree or a document, is not obligated to sue for its cancellation because such an instrument would neither be likely to affect title of plaintiff nor be binding on him – It is logically impossible for a person who is not a party to a document or to a decree to ask for its cancellation – Words used in proviso to Section 34 are “further relief” and “no other relief” – Since, a further relief must flow necessarily from relief of declaration, if such further relief is remote and is not connected in any way with cause of action which has accrued in favour of plaintiffs, then there is no need to claim a further relief and proviso to Section 34 will not be a bar – All that proviso forbids is a suit for pure declaration without necessary relief where plaintiff being able to seek such a relief, has omitted to do so – Proviso must not be construed in a manner which compels plaintiff to sue for any and all reliefs which could possibly be granted to him – Plaintiff must not be debarred from obtaining a relief that he wants for reason that he has failed to seek a relief which is not directly flowing from relief of declaration already sought for. (Paras 28, 30 and 33)

(B) Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Sections 31 and 34 – Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 54 – Title declaratory suit – Maintainability – Filing a suit for cancellation of a sale deed and seeking a declaration that a particular document is inoperative as against plaintiff are two distinct, separate suits – Suit for declaration of title to be decided by a court takes within its fold, consideration of several factors as to how plaintiff is entitled for declaration of title – In such cases, plea of defendants about validity, enforceability and binding nature of any document defeating title of plaintiff have also to be considered – Plaint must be read as a whole and actual relief sought can also be culled out from averments of plaint – Those reliefs can be granted, if there is evidence and circumstances justifying grant of such relief, though not directly or specifically claimed, or asked as a relief – Declaration of title is as good as relief of cancellation of sale deed or at least, declaration that sale deed is not binding on plaintiff being void and non est – High Court having concurred with Courts below on legality and validity of Gift Deed should not have dismissed suit only on the ground that plaintiff failed to pray for cancellation of sale deed – Original decree passed by Trial Court as affirmed by First Appellate Court restored. (Paras 34, 35, 36, 37, 38 and 46)

(C) Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Section 34 – Suit for declaration of status or right – Courts have ample inherent powers and it is their duty to shape their declaration in such a way that they may operate to afford relief which justice of case requires – Section 34 of Act, 1963 is not exhaustive of cases in which a declaratory decree may be made and courts have power to grant such a decree independently of 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 jurisdiction of courts to give declarations of right in appropriate cases falling outside Section 34 – Circumstances in which a declaratory decree under Section 34 should be awarded is a matter of discretion depending upon facts of each case. (Paras 38)

Facts of the case:

Present appeal arises from common judgment and order passed by High Court of Guwahati dated 09.10.2015 in Regular Second Appeal No. 3 of 2007 and Regular Second Appeal No. 11 of 2007 respectively by which High Court allowed both Second Appeals preferred by respondents herein (original defendants) and thereby set aside judgment and decree passed by Trial Court as affirmed by First Appellate Court in favour of appellants (original plaintiffs).

Question of law that falls for consideration:

“Whether High Court was right in taking the view that suit of plaintiff for declaration of his title based on a valid Gift Deed should fail as plaintiff omitted to pray for consequential relief of cancellation of sale deed or a declaration that same is not binding on him?”

Facts of the case:

Impugned common judgment and order dated 09.10.2015 passed by High Court in Regular Second Appeal No. 3 of 2007 and Regular Second Appeal No. 11 of 2007 hereby set aside and original decree passed by Trial Court as affirmed by First Appellate Court hereby restored.

Result : Appeal allowed.