-
by sayum
06 July 2026 2:51 PM
“There can neither be a logical justification nor does it appeal to reason that an instrument stands cancelled by a court of law but the beneficiary would continue to enjoy benefits flowing therefrom”— Allahabad High Court dismissed a plea seeking alteration of its earlier judgment, where it had upheld the cancellation of a sale deed. The applicant-defendants argued that they were in undisputed possession and that the decree passed without a prayer for possession was invalid. The Court, however, refused to entertain this technical ground, stating that possession retained on the basis of a void document has “no legal sanctity.”
The judgment reaffirms that when title is found validly with one party, possession—however obtained or claimed—must yield to law.
"Once a Sale Deed Is Cancelled, Possession Based on It Cannot Be Recognised in Law"
The review petition was based on an apparent omission: the Court in its earlier decision had failed to address one of the substantial questions of law concerning possession. After acknowledging the lapse, Justice Kshitij Shailendra reviewed the earlier decision to explicitly answer the question:
“Even if some statement might have been made by any witness as regards defendant’s possession, the same would be inconsequential as per law and also looking at the nature of the suit that included a prayer for permanent prohibitory injunction.”
He continued: “Possession either obtained by the vendee at the strength of the sale deed or retained by him or even an attempt to take possession on that basis, would be of no legal sanctity.”
“A Justice System Cannot Reward a Losing Party with Continued Possession”
In powerful language, the Court castigated the notion that the defendant could remain in possession despite the sale deed in his favour being cancelled:
“There can neither be a logical justification nor does it appeal to reason that an instrument stands cancelled by a court of law but beneficiary of the instrument would continue to enjoy benefits flowing therefrom teasing the courts of law by making a mockery of the system.”
This pronouncement underscores a strong judicial view that procedural technicalities cannot override substantive justice and equitable relief.
“Suit for Cancellation under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act Does Not Require a Separate Prayer for Possession”
Rejecting the argument that a separate declaratory suit or possession claim was necessary, the Court clarified that the suit was rightly filed under Section 31, not Section 34, of the Specific Relief Act, 1963:
“Section 31 does not contain any proviso requiring claim of any further relief. Once a sale deed is adjudged to be void or voidable, necessary consequences would ensue.”
It further held: “Even if the plaintiff could not establish any prior agreement to sell, there was certainly a sale deed executed in his favour prior in point of time, i.e. on 23.11.1981.”
“The Findings of the First Appellate Court Displaced All Contrary Observations of the Trial Court”
The defendant-applicants had relied on the trial court’s finding that they were in possession. The Court dismissed this argument:
“The first appellate court set aside all the findings of the trial court... therefore, this Court is not inclined to accept the submission that the finding on possession was not challenged or set aside.”
In essence, the trial court's findings ceased to have independent legal existence once overturned.
Justice Reaffirmed, Review Dismissed
Concluding the review, the Court held that although it had inadvertently not addressed Question (e) in the original appeal judgment, its proper consideration now would not alter the final outcome. The decree in favour of the plaintiffs remains intact.
Additionally, recognizing the long pendency of the case—filed in 1982—the Court directed that:
“Execution proceedings will be finalized by the court concerned positively on or before 15.07.2025 and without issuing any further notices to any party.”
Date of Decision: 8 May 2025
