Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2018 Supreme(P&H) 1463

ANIL KSHETARPAL
Rajwati – Appellant
Versus
Sukhi – Respondent

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Johan Kumar, Adv.
Mr. S.K.Chauhan, Adv.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The plaintiffs, as subsequent absolute title holders, could not challenge the lease deed executed by their predecessors due to estoppel under Section 115 of the Evidence Act. [23000660630011] - Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act supports the principle that a transfer by an unauthorized person who subsequently acquires interest remains effective, aligning with estoppel principles. [23000660630014] - Section 13 of the Specific Relief Act supports that a purchaser/lessee may compel the vendor/lessor to validate the title or conveyance when the vendor/lessor acquires interest later; the court applied related reasoning to determine maintainability. [23000660630015] - The suit for declaration and permanent injunction without seeking possession is not maintainable where possession relief is available or required under the proviso to Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act. [23000660630017][23000660630018] - The first appellate court’s dismissal of the suit is sustained, and the cross-objections are allowed in favor of the defendants. [23000660630019]

What is the effect of estoppel under Evidence Act Section 115 on subsequent absolute title holders challenging a lease deed executed by their predecessors?

What is the relevance of Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act in permitting or barring challenges to transfers made by unauthorized persons who later acquire interest?

What is the maintainability of a suit for declaration and permanent injunction without seeking possession when the plaintiff is entitled to possession under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963?

JUDGMENT :

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

This judgment shall dispose of Regular Second Appeal No.959 of 2016 and cross-objection No.2-C-2017, filed by the plaintiffs-appellants and defendants-cross-objectors.

2. In the considered opinion of this court, following substantial question of law arise:-

(i) Whether a person who subsequently acquires absolute title can be permitted to challenge the lease deed for a period of 99 years executed by him on the ground that on the day, he executed the lease deed, he was not competent to execute?

(ii) Whether an executant of the document/deed/instrument can be permitted to challenge the same on the ground that he was not competent to execute?

(iii) Whether a suit for a mere declaration and permanent injunction is maintainable when plaintiffs is/are entitled to further relief of possession but do not seek the further relief?

3. Certain facts would be necessary to understand the controversy involved.

4. Gajender etc. including Bhudutt, Ramkali, Deep Chand and Rameshwari were “Dholidars” on agriculture land situated in village Solda Tehsil and District Palwal. Dholi is a tenure of a particular kind. Normally it is a rent free grant given by the proprietors to the pe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2018 Supreme(P&H) 1463

ANIL KSHETARPALRajwati – AppellantVersusSukhi – Respondent

What is the effect of estoppel under Evidence Act Section 115 on subsequent absolute title holders challenging a lease deed executed by their predecessors?

What is the relevance of Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act in permitting or barring challenges to transfers made by unauthorized persons who later acquire interest?

What is the maintainability of a suit for declaration and permanent injunction without seeking possession when the plaintiff is entitled to possession under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963?

ANIL KSHETARPAL
Rajwati – Appellant
Versus
Sukhi – Respondent