suit for declaration without cancellation of sale deed is valid

Suit for partition  -questioning the validity and binding nature of sale deed without asking for cancellation .
Partition suit without prayer for cancellation of sale deed is maintainable and the question of limitation of 3 years not applies from the date of alienation As the plaintiff is not eo nomine a party to the sale-deed, it is not necessary for him to pray for cancellation of the sale-deed and it is open for him to question the validity and binding nature of the sale-deed
that the lower Court erred in holding that the suit filed for partition without a prayer for cancellation of the sale-deed is not maintainable and that the suit is also barred by limitation inasmuch as it was not filed within three years from the date of the alienation. I find force in this submission. As the plaintiff is not eo nomine a party to the sale-deed, it is not necessary for him to pray for cancellation of the sale-deed and it is open for him to question the validity and binding nature of the sale-deed. In Ramaswami v. Rangacharia a Full Bench of the Madras High Court held that in respect of alienations by the father to which the minor son was not eo nomine a party and which are challenged by him in the suit for partition against his father, the plaint need not contain a prayer for a declaration or cancellation. The Full Bench referred to in this context the following observations made in Unni v. Kunchi Amma, (1891) 14 Mad 26:
"If a person not having authority to execute a deed, or having such authority under certain circumstances which did not exist, executes a deed, it is not necessary for persons who are not bound by it, to sue to set it aside, for it cannot be used against them. They may treat it as nonexistent and sue for their right as if it did not exist."
The same principle has been laid down in Bijoy Gopal v. Krishna Mahishi Debi, (1907) 34 Cal 32 = 34 IA 87, regarding the alienations made by the widow of the last male owner which are sought to be impeached by the reversioners as not binding on them. It, therefore, follows that it was not necessary for the plaintiff to pray for cancellation or for setting aside the sale-deed. In this view of the matter, the question of limitation also does not arise. However, this would not make any difference so far as the ultimate result is concerned.
For all the aforesaid reasons, the plaintiff-appellant is not entitled to any relief.
The appeal thus fails and it is accordingly dismissed. But there will be no order as to costs.-2015 A.P.(1998) MSKLAWREPORTS

Popular posts from this blog

Sec.482 Cr.P.C. - Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 - Part B question Paper was missed ( said to be distributed to A1 along with other students by A2 an invigilator ) - Charge - she was negligent in performing the invigilation duties. - Their Lordships held that Mere negligence in performing invigilation duties, does not attract the offence set-forth in the Act. Therefore, in absence of any allegation that the petitioner herein has committed the offence set out in Section 5 of the Act, she cannot be subjected to prosecution for which the penalty has been provided under Section 8 of the Act.- Quashed the criminal proceedings - 2015 Telganga & A.P. msklawreports

Section 5 of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 read with Rule 9(1)(a)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the Rules of 1989. - Powers of Revenue Court - Petitioners are the legal heirs of Late Sri A. Penta Reddy and respondents 1 to 3 are the brothers of Penta Reddy - Petitioners claimed as Separate Property - Brothers/Respondents claimed as Joint family Property - MRO held summary enquiry and held that it is Joint family Property - No Appeal to RDO - after the lapse of 12 years filed Revision directly to Joint Collector - JC. dismissed the revision - this Writ - Their Lordships held that in the absence of any suit for Declaration of title after receiving Rule 9 notice with in 3 months, the MRO can decide the dispute summarily - since no appeal is filed nor any suit is filed in any court - the orders of MRO can not be challanged after the lapse of 12 years - dismissed the revision - -2015 Telangana & A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS

DVC CASE - Practice & Procedure - Magistrate shall issue a notice of the date of hearing fixed under Sec.12-the Magistrate need not, nay shall not issue warrant for securing presence of respondent - the Court need not insist for personal attendance of the parties for each adjournment like in criminal cases.-if the respondents failed to turn up after receiving notice and file their counter affidavit if any,pass an exparte order by virtue of the power conferred on him under Sec.23 of the D.V.Act.-only under exceptional circumstances, if the Magistrate feels required, he may issue warrants for securing the presence of the concerned party. -2015 A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS( Telegana)