Case Note & Summary
The appellant-defendant challenged the concurrent findings of the trial court and first appellate court in a suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff. The plaintiff claimed to be the owner and in possession of agricultural land. He alleged that in January 1989, he needed Rs. 5000 and approached the defendant, a money lender. The defendant insisted on execution of a nominal sale deed as security for the loan. A sale deed was executed on 23.01.1989, but the plaintiff claimed he did not part with possession and continued to pay interest. In 1992, a dispute arose over interest, and the defendant started obstructing the plaintiff's possession. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that the sale deed was sham and nominal and for injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with his possession. The defendant contended that the sale was an out-and-out sale and that the plaintiff had not sought cancellation of the sale deed, making the suit not maintainable. The trial court decreed the suit, and the first appellate court confirmed the decree. In second appeal, the substantial question of law was whether the suit was tenable without seeking cancellation of the sale deed under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The High Court held that a suit for declaration that a document is sham and nominal does not require cancellation under Section 31, as the plaintiff does not seek to avoid the document but only to declare its true character. The appeal was dismissed, and the concurrent findings were confirmed.
Headnote
A) Specific Relief Act - Section 31 - Suit for Declaration Without Cancellation - Maintainability - The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that a sale deed executed by him was sham and nominal, without seeking cancellation of the deed. The defendant contended that the suit was not tenable as the plaintiff did not seek setting aside of the sale deed. The Court held that a suit for declaration that a document is sham and nominal is maintainable without seeking cancellation under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, as the plaintiff does not seek to avoid the document but only to declare its true nature. (Paras 2-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a suit for declaration that a sale deed is sham and nominal is maintainable without seeking cancellation of the sale deed under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the second appeal, confirming the concurrent findings of the courts below. The suit was held maintainable without seeking cancellation under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
Law Points
- Section 31 Specific Relief Act
- 1963
- suit for declaration without cancellation of instrument
- sham transaction
- nominal sale deed
- maintainability of suit
