Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
The legal principle emphasizes that the act of seeking cancellation is only necessary if the party is directly involved in the original document or decree. Otherwise, ignoring the document and asking for a declaration suffices, and court fees are payable based on the relief sought, not for cancellation ["Kanthammal"], AIR 1940 Mad 113, AIR 1952 Mad 552, ["K. Chinnathurai VS Allimuthu & Others - Madras"].
Analysis and Conclusion:
It held that according to the plaint, when the plaintiff is not a party to the sale deed, he need not ask for cancellation of the sale deed as the cancellation implies that the person suing should be an actual or constructive party to a valid or operative document. ... This Court held that since the plaintiff was not a party to the registered sale deed, he #HL_S....
It held that according to the plaint, when the plaintiff is not a party to the sale deed, he need not ask for cancellation of the sale deed as the cancellation implies that the person suing should be an actual or constructive party to a valid or operative document. ... This Court held that since the plaintiff was not a party to the registered sale deed, he #HL_S....
... Even according to the plaintiff and the plaint allegations, when the plaintiff is not a party to the sale deed, in fact, he need not ask for cancellation of the sale deed as the cancellation implies that the person suing should be an actual or constructive party to a valid or operative ... Moreover, inasmuch as the sale deed dated 22.4.2003 insofar as the petitioner is concerned is a sham transaction, the petitioner ne....
is made, he need not pay court fee.” ... It held that according to the plaint, when the plaintiff is not a party to the sale deed, he need not ask for cancellation of the sale deed as the cancellation implies that the person suing should be an actual or constructive party to a valid or operative document. ... It further held t....
cancellation of that transaction but can only ask for a declaration that so far as he is concerned, it is not binding.” ... Their Lordships further went on and said thus: ... ”Even if the plaintiff be considered not to have been a party at all to the prior suit by reason of his minority still since he has chosen to sue for a declaration of the invalidity of that decree he must pay court-#HL_START....
In fact, it is logically impossible for a person who is not a party to a document or to a decree to ask for its cancellation. ... As per the ration laid down in the abovesaid decisions, only a party to the document alone need to pay the court fee as valued under Section 40(1) of the Act and a third party to the document is not....
cancellation and to pay the court-fee accordingly. ... It was held that it was not enough for him to merely sue for possession and pay court-fee on that basis, but he must sue for the cancellation of the document as the document had to be set aside. ... the plaintiff should pay additional court-fee for cancellation merely beca....
As per the ration laid down in the above said decisions, only a party to the document alone need to pay the court fee as valued under Section 40(1) of the Act and a third party to the document is not entitled to value the suit property under Section 40(1) of the Act. ... In fact, it is logically impossible for a person who is not a party to a #....
and the plaintiff need not in such suit ask for further relief. ... Kanthammal, AIR 1952 Mad. 552 it was held that a person who is not a party to a decree or a document is not bound to sue for its cancellation. ... In fact, i is logically imposable for a person who is not a party to a document or to a decree to ask for its #HL....
There also, a contention was raised that the document of partition was void and need not therefore be set aside as a void document was non est in law. ... Mohideen Pichai 3are cases where it was held that where a conveyance deed was alleged to be sham and nominal it was wholly un-cessary for the plaintiff to ask for a cancellation of the deed and pay Court-fee thereon. In Rambharosa Lal v. ... Kandaswamie 7, where a Full Bench of th....
“In view of the principle enunciated in the case cited supra, the finding of the trial Court that the Ex.B1 gift deed executed in favour of the defendant was cancelled is not sustainable. The only remedy available to the donor is to file a suit for cancellation of Ex.B1 gift deed, as provided Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act. The plaintiff filed the suit seeking injunction simpliciter. In such circumstances, the trial Court ought not to have framed the issue, which is in the nature of a declaration. The trial Court decreed the suit basing on oral evidence of PWs.1 to 3 and also on a wro....
The trial court held that the suit for cancellation is not maintainable at the instance of a person, who is not a party to the instrument or a person, who is claiming under the executor of the document. In other words, the plaintiff cannot seek for cancellation of the document in which he is not a party to the suit and his remedy is to seek for declaration that he is not affected by the document.
The fundamental issue which arises for consideration is whether in case where name of plaintiff seeking cancellation of a document is not recorded in revenue records, is it imperative for him to first seek declaration of his title in a suit filed before revenue court or he could straight away approach civil court for cancellation of the document.
If a person is not a party to a document, he need not seek cancellation and can seek declaration that same is null and void and pay court fee under Section 25(d) of the Act. In the judgments relied on both the petitioners and first respondent, it has been held that when a person is a party to a document, he has to seek setting aside the same namely cancellation even if he alleges fraud and pay court fee under Section 40 of the Act.
In fact, it is logically impossible for a person who is not a party to a document or to a decree to ask for its cancellation. On the contrary, in the decision in Ponnammal V. Kanthammal, reported in AIR 1952 Madras 552 wherein the Full Bench decision of this court in AIR 1940 Mad 113 has been followed is to the effect that a person who is not a party to a decree or a document is not bound to sue for its cancellation. It is also held that the relief which the plaintiff asked could be given without a cancellation of the document and therefore she was not required to pay court....
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
