A faint effort was made in the end to contend that the
plaintiff-respondent Nandu Lal had not asked for any
relief of cancellation of the sale deed by which the
property was purchased by the defendant-appellant S.K.
Golam Lalchand and, therefore, is not entitle to any relief
in this suit. The argument has been noted only to be
rejected for the simple reason that Section 31 of the
Specific Relief Act, 1963 uses the word ‘may’ for getting
declared the instrument as void which is not imperative
in every case, more particularly when the person is not a
party to such an instrument. {Para 23}.
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.4177 OF 2024
SK. GOLAM LALCHAND Vs NANDU LAL SHAW @ NAND LAL KESHRI @ NANDU LAL BAYES & ORS.
Author: PANKAJ MITHAL, J.
Citation: 2024 INSC 676.
Dated: SEPTEMBER 10, 2024.
Read full Judgment here: Click here.
No comments:
Post a Comment