In the recent case of Sukhmander Singh And Ors Etc. v. The State Of Punjab And Ors Etc., the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that, a third person, who is not a party to the sale deed and has been affected by the execution of said sale deed between the parties, cannot be compelled to file a separate application seeking cancellation of the sale deed under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (“SCR”).

The factual backdrop within which such observation was made was in relation to a dispute whereby one of the co-owners executed a sale deed, in favor of the subsequent purchaser (Appellant herein) without the authorization of the other co-owners in the joint family property (Respondent herein).

The Appellant contended that since the Respondent had not asked for cancellation of the sale deed, hence the same could not be cancelled on its own. It is considering this specific contention, that the Hon’ble court anatomized the requirements of Section 31 of SCR and made the following pertinent observation while rejecting the argument raised by the Respondent:

 “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.”

 Another apposite observation made by the Hon’ble Court in light of the facts was that no right, title and interest could be acquired by a subsequent purchaser in the whole of the suit property solely based on a sale deed executed by a co-owner, particularly where such property is a joint family property with various co-owners whose shares remained undetermined as partition has not been completed by metes and bounds.