Decree null and void

Querist : Anonymous (Querist) 12 April 2021 This query is : Resolved
Society filed suit in district court for specific performance to sign conveyance deed and got decree in its favour in 2007. Land affected by Urban land ceiling so Decree non-est ( ulc act repealed after the decree was passed). They then (post repeal) proceeded in executive court and Conveyance deed signed by a court commissioner. Thereafter society went in for a development agreement (Redevelopment). Redevelopment is complete. As decree is non-est and void, Is the Conveyance deed, Redevelopment deed void and is redevelopment illegal? What action needs to be taken by the original landowner?

Follow Query

Report Abuse

Advocate Bhartesh goyal (Expert) 12 April 2021
As decree obtained by society is non est and further it's execution is in progress so you have to file suit for declaration and injunction and get declared the decree null and void.

ashok kumar singh (Expert) 12 April 2021
Very truly viewed by earlier expert, therefore no further comment so far.
thanks

Querist : Anonymous (Querist) 13 April 2021
Execution done Conveyance Deed thru Court 2011,Commissioner Done. Development Deed done 2013. Redevelopment over 2016. Can I get all the actions done after the non estate decree declared illegal?

Querist : Anonymous (Querist) 13 April 2021
Can I sue for setting aside all deeds and possession of the land?

Advocate Bhartesh goyal (Expert) 13 April 2021
Yes,when decree was null and void ab initio then further proceedings in this regards also void. so you may file suit for declaration to get decree null and void and further proceedings also.

Hemant Agarwal (Expert) 13 April 2021
1. Conveyance of Land and Redevelopment of Building are two separate legal issues. Conveyance of Land is reflected in "Property Card" and even IF the building falls done or disappears, the Land does not disappear away.

2. Any lacunae in the Conveyance Decree (which is legally rectifiable) or whatever shall NOT legally nullify the already concluded Redevelopment of Building.

Keep Smiling .... Hemant Agarwal
VISIT: www.chshelpforum.com

Querist : Anonymous (Querist) 14 April 2021
The matter pertained to retainable land under ULC. District Court does not have jurisdiction. However, District court Decree and Judgement was used for Execution, Property Card, and Conveyance Deed, all these, post Repeal of ULC. Is this not Fraud? If conveyance Deed is declared null how can Redevelopment subsequently based on same not be called illegal? Moreover Redevelopment is using some of my (original owner) land and hence too illegal. Instead of 1000 sq. mts they are using 1091 sq mts this 91 sq mts extraw is our land.

Querist : Anonymous (Querist) 14 April 2021
Kindly advise on best action.

T. Kalaiselvan, Advocate (Expert) 26 May 2021
You were advised to file a suit for declaration.
However the suit already decreed by a court cannot be declared as null and void
Only an appeal can be preferred by the aggrieved party.
A decree which has been obtained by fraud can be cancelled by the same court which has passed the decree and the application filed. The party need not to file a fresh suit.
The decree or judgment passed by the court can be challenged on the basis of the facts of the case and the legal interpretation of the legal provisions.
An executing Court cannot go behind the decree or question the jurisdiction of the Court which passed it (22 P.R. ... Its function is to execute the decree as it stands. It may, however, refer to the judgment to ascertain its meaning when the terms of the decree are ambiguous.
In Vasudev Dhanjibhai Modi v. Rajabhai Abdul Rehman & Ors., 1970 AIR 1475, 1971 SCR (1) 66, a decree for possession was passed by the Court of Small Causes which was confirmed in appeal as well as in revision. In execution proceedings, it was contented that the Small Causes Court had no jurisdiction to pass the decree and, hence, it was a nullity.

Rejecting the contention, this Court stated:

“a Court executing a decree cannot go behind the decree : between the parties or their representatives it must take the decree according to its tenor, and cannot entertain any objection that the decree was incorrect in law or on facts. Until it is set aside by an appropriate proceeding in appeal or revision, a decree even if it be erroneous is still binding between the parties. Suffice it to say that recently a bench of two-Judges of this Court has considered the distinction between null and void decree and illegal decree in Rafique Bibi v. Sayed Waliuddin, [2004] l SCC 287. One of us (R.C. Lahoti, J. as his Lordship then was), quoting with approval the law laid down in Vasudev Dhanjibhai Modi, stated:

“What is ‘void’ has to be clearly understood. A decree can be said to be without jurisdiction, and hence a nullity, if the court passing the decree has usurped a jurisdiction which it did not have; a mere wrong exercise of jurisdiction does not result in a nullity. The lack of jurisdiction in the court passing the decree must be patent on its face in order to enable the executing court to take cognizance of such a nullity based on want of jurisdiction, else the normal rule that an executing court cannot go behind the decree must prevail.

Two things must be clearly borne in mind. Firstly, ‘the court will invalidate an order only if the right remedy is sought by the right person in the right proceedings and circumstances. The order may be a ‘a nullity’ and ‘void’ but these terms have not absolute sense: their meaning is relative, depending upon the court’s willingness to grant relief in any particular situation. If this principle of illegal relativity is borne in mind, the law can be made to operate justly and reasonably in cases where the doctrine of ultra vires, rigidly applied, would produce unacceptable results.’