SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 29847

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Easwaran S., J
Ramadevi – Appellant
Versus
Sameer A – Respondent
RSA NO. 189 OF 2025 | AS NO.134 OF 2018 | OS NO.39 OF 2013



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: K. Mohanakannan, M.A. Zohra

An executant of a registered document must seek the cancellation of said document along with consequential relief rather than relying on a mere declaration to challenge its validity.

Headnote:The present case involves an appeal against the concurrent findings of the lower courts in a suit for declaration regarding the nature of a document executed in 2012. The appellant contended that the document was intended as security for a loan transaction rather than a sale deed. However, the court identified that the appellant sought only a declaration and failed to seek cancellation of the document as required by law. The core issue before the court was whether a suit for mere declaration is maintainable when an executant seeks to avoid a document. Relying on settled legal principles, the court determined that an executant of a document must specifically seek its cancellation along with consequential relief, rather than relying on a mere declaration. The failure to seek proper reliefs renders the claim insufficient. Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed.

Table of Content
1. plaintiff challenged a document's intent without seeking cancellation. (Para 1)
2. executants must seek cancellation of deeds for validity challenges. (Para 2 , 3)

JUDGMENT

The plaintiff has filed a suit for a declaration that the documents executed by her in the year 2012 were never intended to be acted upon as executed and were only intended as security for the transaction. Both courts have concurrently found against the plaintiff. Though several contentions were raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, this Court finds that the plaintiff has only sought a declaration that the documents executed by her were not intended to be a sale deed but were instead intended as security for the loan transaction, and therefore she has not prayed for setting aside the documents.

2. In Suhrid Singh alias Sardool Singh VS Randhir Singh and others (2010) 12 SCC 112, it was held that when the executant of a document seeks to avoid or invalidate the document , a mere declaration is insufficient and the executant must seek cancellation of the document along with the consequential relief.

3. Admittedly, the appellant/plaintiff has not sought cancellation of the document executed by her. That be so, the findings rendered by the courts below do not call for any interference. Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed finding that no substantial questions are raised for consideration.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top