Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(ii) In Aisha Begum's case (supra), the Allahabad High Court held that there was a distinction between a void and voidable contract and that in the former, there was no necessity to seek a declaration to the said effect and the rights of the parties could be determined independent of the deed,

(iii) The Madras High Court in Khata Chinna Eswarareddi's case held that if the plaintiff alleges that a sale deed is taken by fraud or for no consideration, the same is a void contract which need not be set aside before one could seek recovery of possession ignoring the said sale deed.

(vi) The decision of the Supreme Court in Ningainma's case (supra), is that a contract or other transaction induced or tainted by fraud is not void but only voidable at the option of the party defrauded, provided the party defrauded has done nothing to affirm the contract. It is further held that the document is void if the fraudulent misrepresentation is as regards its character but voidable if it is as regards its contents. Following the aforesaid legal principles, the Division bench of this Court in Kenchawwa's case (supra) held that it is only when the plaintiff makes out a case of fraud and misrepresentation that the document in question would be void.