2026 Supreme(Online)(Jhk) 321

HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
Rajesh Shankar, J
Rajasthan Bhawan Trust – Appellant
Versus
Lal Rudra Pratap Nath Sahdeo – Respondent
L.P.A. No. 511 of 1999 (R)

A suit for mere declaration of title is maintainable without consequential relief if the plaintiff is in possession. Furthermore, a sale deed registered by including fictitious property to confer false territorial jurisdiction upon a registrar constitutes a fraud on the registration system, rendering the transaction void.

Headnote:(A) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 34 - Proviso to Section 34 - Suit for declaration - Requirement of consequential relief - Maintainability where plaintiff is in possession - Held, if the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property, a suit for mere declaration of title is maintainable without seeking consequential relief as the proviso to Section 34 does not compel a plaintiff to sue for all possible reliefs not directly flowing from the declaration. (Paras 54-58)

(B) Registration Act, 1908 - Section 28 - Fraud on registration system - Inclusion of fictitious property to confer jurisdiction - If a sale deed is registered at an office lacking territorial jurisdiction by intentionally including an unrelated or non-existent property to invoke such jurisdiction, the transaction is fraudulent and the instrument is void. (Paras 48-52)

(C) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 8 - Scope of transfer - Effect of unregistered agreement - Pre-emption rights - Parties bound by registered agreements regarding property transfer cannot ignore terms requiring notice of sale to co-sharers. (Paras 36, 47)

Facts of the case:
The family co-sharers collectively held property. A registered agreement mandated that any intended sale of the property by a co-sharer must first be offered to the others. Subsequently, a sale was made to a third party. To enable the registration of this sale at a different office outside the jurisdiction of the property location, a minor piece of land was included in the deed. The original co-sharers filed a suit for declaration that the sale deed was void, alleging fraud and violation of the pre-emption agreement.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the defendant failed to prove the service of notice to the co-sharers. It further concluded that the inclusion of an external property in the deed was a collusive attempt to commit fraud on the registration law. The suit was held to be maintainable because the plaintiffs, who remained in possession of the property, were not required to seek consequential delivery of possession.

Issues: (1) Whether the suit for declaration of title was barred by the proviso to Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act for want of consequential relief of possession. (2) Whether the sale deed was void due to fraud on the registration system and lack of jurisdictional competence. (3) Whether the failure to offer the property to co-sharers violated the registered agreement.

Ratio Decidendi: A suit for declaration is maintainable without a prayer for consequential relief if the claimant remains in possession, as the relief of possession does not necessarily flow from the declaration itself. Furthermore, transactions designed to trick statutory registration offices by attaching external or fictitious properties are fraudulent and render the resulting deed void as a matter of law.

Result: Appeal dismissed.