Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

Recently, the bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan held that a plaintiff seeking a declaration of title under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (SRA) , is not required to seek cancellation of a sale deed executed by a third party under Section 31, as such cancellation does not constitute a necessary "further relief" and the absence of such a claim does not render the suit non-maintainable. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the matter of Hussain Ahmed Choudhury & Ors. v. Habibur Rahman (Dead) Through Lrs & ORS (2025).

What was the Background of Hussain Ahmed Choudhury & Ors. v. Habibur Rahman (Dead) Through Lrs & ORS. (2025) Case? 

• This case involves a dispute over land ownership and the validity of two competing instruments  
  • a Gift Deed dated 26^th April 1958, and a subsequent Sale Deed dated 05th May1997. 
• Haji Abdul Aziz Choudhury (grandfather of the original plaintiff) executed a registered Gift Deed on 26th April 1958 in favor of Siraj Uddin Choudhury (original plaintiff) for land measuring 08 bighas and 06 chatak, which included the suit land measuring 04 bighas, 05 katha and 06 chatak. 
• The Gift Deed was executed because Abdul Aziz's son had predeceased him, and his grandson (Siraj Uddin) would not otherwise have been eligible to inherit his grandfather's property under Muslim law. 
• Abdul Aziz Choudhury passed away in 1971. 
• On 05th May 1997, respondent no. 1 allegedly purchased part of the suit land from original defendant nos. 1 to 6 (brothers and sisters of the plaintiff's deceased father). 
• According to the plaintiff, these defendants had no title or saleable rights over the suit property. 
• The plaintiff filed Title Suit No. 88/1997 seeking declaration, confirmation of possession, and mandatory injunction over the suit's land. 
• The cause of the action arose in 1997 when the defendants started threatening to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit's property. 
• During the pendency of the suit, on 08.05.1999, the defendants succeeded in forcibly dispossessing the plaintiff. 
• The plaint was subsequently amended on 28.08.1999 to seek recovery of possession. 
• The Trial Court decided in favor of the plaintiff, holding that:  
• The Gift Deed was validly executed 
• The property was clearly identifiable despite mis-description of Dag numbers 
• The plaintiff had acquired right, title, interest and possession over the suit land 
• Defendants had no saleable interest to sell the suit land 
• Two separate appeals were filed against this judgment in the First Appellate Court, which affirmed the Trial Court's findings. 
• The defendants then filed second appeals in the High Court. 
• While the High Court affirmed the findings regarding the validity of the Gift Deed and delivery of possession, it ultimately allowed the appeals and dismissed the plaintiff's suit on the procedural ground that the plaintiff had failed to challenge the subsequent sale deed and seek its cancellation. 
• Against this decision of the High Court, the present appeal was filed in the Supreme Court.

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court observed that the issue at hand was whether a plaintiff seeking declaration of title based on a valid Gift Deed should fail merely because the plaintiff omitted to pray for cancellation of a subsequent sale deed or declaration that the same is not binding. 
• The Court noted that under Section 31 of SRA 1963, the expression "any person" does not include a third party but is restricted to either a party to the written instrument or any person who is bound by a party to the instrument. 
• The Court observed that it is logically impossible for a person who is not a party to a document or decree to ask for its cancellation. 
• The Court held that filing a suit for cancellation of a sale deed and seeking a declaration that a particular document is inoperative against the plaintiff are two distinct, separate legal actions. 
• The Court stated that where the executant of a deed wants it to be annulled, they must seek cancellation under Section 31, but if a non-executant seeks annulment, they need only seek a declaration that the deed is invalid or not binding on them. 
• Regarding Section 34 , the Court observed that "further relief" must flow necessarily from the declaration sought, and if such relief is remote and not connected with the cause of action, there is no need to claim it. 
• The Court held that the proviso to Section 34 should not be construed in a manner that compels the plaintiff to sue for any and all reliefs which could potentially be granted. 
• The Court observed that a suit for declaration of title considers several factors about how the plaintiff is entitled to such declaration, naturally encompassing consideration of defendants' pleas regarding the validity and binding nature of any document claimed to defeat the plaintiff's title. 
• The Court emphasized that courts have inherent powers to shape declarations to afford the relief that justice requires, and Section 34 is not exhaustive of cases where declaratory decrees may be made. 
• The Court concluded that declaring title is equivalent to relief seeking cancellation of the sale deed or at minimum, a declaration that the sale deed is not binding on the plaintiff due to being void and non est. 
• The Supreme Court determined that the High Court erred in dismissing the suit solely because the plaintiff did not specifically pray for cancellation of the sale deed. 

What is Section 34 of SRA ? 

• Section 34 deals with the Discretion of court as to declaration of status or right. 
• Key Elements: 
  • A person can file a suit seeking a declaration about their legal character or right to property 
  • This can be filed against anyone who denies or has an interest in denying that legal character or right 
  • The court has discretion whether to make such a declaration 
  • The plaintiff doesn't need to ask for any additional relief beyond the declaration 
• Important Limitation: 
  • The court cannot make such a declaration if the plaintiff can seek further relief beyond a mere declaration of title but chooses not to do so 
• Explanation Clause: 
  • A trustee is considered a "person interested to deny" a title that's adverse to someone not currently in existence but who would be the beneficiary of the trust if they existed 
  • This section essentially allows people to clarify their legal status or property rights through court declarations when those rights are being disputed, but with the limitation that they must seek all available remedies rather than just a declaration if additional remedies are available to them.