Rajkumar Pandey & Ors. vs Balmukund Agrawal & Anr on 18 April, 2012
7: Smt. Sudha Pandit, learned counsel appearing for
appellants contended that Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act,
1963, prescribes that a registered document can be cancelled
if it is proved that the same is void or voidable. However, if a
person has been put in possession pursuance to the execution
of the said document/ instrument, unless restoration of
possession is claimed, the said document cannot be declared
bad in law. Putting reliance in the case of Dambar Lal Vs. B.
Chand Mal and others (AIR 1932 Allahabad 485), it is
contended that in case the Court finds that plaintiff was not in
possession of the suit property, said to be transferred under
the instrument, the Court was not required to pass a decree of
declaration that such an instrument is void. It is contended
that if the law is properly appreciated, the factual aspect is
examined, it would be clear that the appellants were put in
possession of the disputed property soon after the execution
of sale deeds in their favour and this fact was well within the
6
knowledge of the respondent No.1/plaintiff, but possession on
the disputed land was not claimed in the suit and, therefore,
the relief as claimed could not have been granted to the
respondent No.1/plaintiff.