Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.
Rajwati and another - Appellants
Versus
Sukhi and others - Respondents
RSA No.959 of 2016 (O&M) and XOBJC-2-C-2017
Decided On : 09-05-2018
lease deed - challenge by subsequent absolute title holder - Evidence Act, Section 115; Transfer of Property Act, Section 43; Specific Relief Act, 1963, Section 13 - The court held that the subsequent absolute title holders could not challenge the lease deed executed by their predecessors and that the suit for declaration and permanent injunction was not maintainable due to failure to seek further relief of possession.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs, subsequent absolute title holders, challenged a lease deed executed by their predecessors, claiming it was illegal. The trial court decreed the suit, but the first appellate court held that the suit for declaration and permanent injunction was not maintainable.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the subsequent absolute title holders could not challenge the lease deed and that the suit for declaration and permanent injunction was not maintainable due to failure to seek further relief of possession.
Issues: Whether subsequent absolute title holders can challenge a lease deed and whether a suit for mere declaration and permanent injunction is maintainable without seeking further relief of possession.
Ratio Decidendi: The subsequent absolute title holders could not challenge the lease deed due to estoppel under the Evidence Act, Section 115, and the principles of Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act. The suit for declaration and permanent injunction was not maintainable as per Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
Final Decision: The court upheld the judgment of the first appellate court, dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiffs and allowing the cross objection filed by the defendants.
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]
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 persons who are working for the benefit of the community like working in a temple, mosque, shrine or at any religious place. Such dholidars enjoy possession and usufruct of the land given to them without payment of any lease in lieu of services rendered by them. However, if they stop rendering services, such grant is revokable.
5. In state of Haryana by an Act of 2010, such like persons have been conferred ownership by passing the Haryana Dholidar, Butimar, Bhondedar and Muqararidar (Vesting of Property Rights) Act, 2010. It is a different matter that the vires of the aforesaid act have been challenged and pending for adjudication.
6. Certain Dholidars executed a registered lease deed dated 13.09.2001 in favour of defendants for a period of 99 years while leasing out the property at Rs.4000/- per year and received a sum of Rs. 3,96,000/-. In other words, entire lease money for 99 years was received in advance and defendants were put in possession of the land in question. After 2010 Act, as noticed earlier, four out of various dholidars who had become owners, executed two registered sale deeds dated 12.02.2014 and 18.06.2014, selling land measuring 29 kanals and 18 marlas in favour of the plaintiffs. It was specifically recorded in the registered sale deeds that some part of the land being sold to them is on lease. Even in the revenue record, pursuant to the lease dated 13.09.2001 entries were made in favour of the defendants.
7. Plaintiffs, the purchasers, filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction claiming that the lease deed for a 99 years executed by their predecessors was illegal, null and void as dholidars were not entitled to lease out the property for a period of 99 years as it amounts to permanent alienation which is not permissible under the law.
8. Defendants contested the suit and pleaded that they are lessees over the land and they are entitled to remain in possession of the land pursuant to the lease deed. Defendants even pleaded that the sale deeds executed in favour of plaintiffs were null and void. Maintainability of a mere suit for declaration and permanent injunction without further relief of possession was also questioned.
9. Learned trial court decreed the suit and held that the lease deed executed by predecessor in interest of the plaintiffs, the then Dholidars was against law and therefore set aside the lease deed.
10. Defendants filed the first appeal. First appeal filed by the defendants has been accepted by the learned first appellate court on the ground that mere suit for declaration without seeking further consequential relief of possession is not maintainable in view of proviso to Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act. That is how regular second appeal and cross objections have been preferred.
11. Now the stage is set to
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
