���QUIET TITLE�۪ vis-��-vis INDIA

What is ‘Quiet Title’:

Title is the right of ownership and possession of a particular property. So, to ‘quiet title’ means to take action in order to establish a person’s title to a property, against anyone and everyone, and thus ‘quiet’ any challenge or claim to title to a property.

Purpose of a ‘Quiet Title’ action:

The purpose of a ‘quiet title’ action is to establish title of the property and to determine who actually has legal interest in the property. In a ‘quiet title’ action, a court proceeding removes a cloud or possible encumbrance on title to a property to firmly establish, in law, ownership of the property.

Grounds for a ‘Quiet Title’ action:

It comprises a plaint that the title of a property is defective and ambiguous, on the grounds stated in the plaint. Typical grounds include:

*          adverse possession, where the new possessor sues to obtain title in his or her own name; *          fraudulent conveyance of a property, perhaps by a forged deed or under coercion;

*          tax issues, where a municipality claims title in lieu of taxes owed;

*          boundary disputes between state, municipality, or private parties;

*          surveying errors; and

*          competing claims by missing heirs and lien holders.

Process to initiate ‘Quiet Title’ action:

To initiate an action to ‘quiet title’, the property owner must file a plaint before the jurisdictional civil Court inter alia performing the following:

*          Identify the full description of the property to be quieted;

*          Name anyone who might have interest in the described property as a defendant to the suit; and

*          Give notice to all potentially interested parties. If the Court finds that the party seeking to ‘quiet title’ actually owns title, the Court will grant a quiet title judgment / decree, which provides that the party has legal and good title.

Goal of a ‘Quiet Title’ action:

The goal of a ‘quiet title’ action is to establish free and clear ownership of the property, and to resolve any defects found in a property.  Depending on the circumstances, the process and outcomes can change.

Indian Courts on ‘Quiet Title’:

The Supreme Court of India in the case of

Razia Begum v. Sahebzadi Anwar Begum & Others

[1] while dealing with the issue of declaratory suit and declaratory relief vis-à-vis the provisions of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 observed as follows: “

In this connection, it has to be remarked that the discretion vested in a court to grant a merely declaratory relief as distinguished from a judgment which is capable of being enforced by execution, derives its utility and importance from the objects it has in view, namely, to “prevent future litigation by removing existing causes of controversy”, “to quiet title” and “to perpetuate testimony”, as also to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. This practice of granting declaratory reliefs, which originated in England in the Equity Courts, has been very much extended in America by statutory provisions. In India, the law has been codified in the Specific Relief Act, in Chapter VI, and has, in a sense, extended the scope of the rule by providing for declarations not only in respect of claims to property but also in respect of disputes as regards status. From the terms of Section 42 of the Act, it would appear that the Indian courts have not been empowered to grant every form of declaration which may be available in America. In its very nature, a declaratory decree does not confer any new right, but only clears up mists which may have gathered round the title to property or to status or a legal character. When a court makes a declaration in respect of a disputed status, important rights flow from such a judicial declaration. Hence, a declaration granted in respect of a legal character or status in favour of a person is meant to bind not only persons actually parties to the litigation, but also persons claiming though them, as laid down in Section 43 of the Act. It is, thus, a rule of substantive law, and is distinct and separate from the rule of res judicata or estoppel by judgment.”

The Calcutta High Court in the case of Tarak Nath Roy Chowdhury and Another v. Syama Charan Chowdhury and Another[2] observed that “the object of a declaratory decree is to quiet title, and the Court should not make such a decree when it would not be conclusive”.

The Calcutta High Court in the case of Kalpana Majumdar v. Packard Exports Private Limited[3] observed that “It is obvious that the declaration would not bind persons who are not parties to the suit, Section 35 of the Specific Relief Act enacts a rule of substantive law. Such declaratory relief has great importance viewed from its objectivity that the effect of such declaration is to prevent future litigation by removing existing causes of controversy, to quiet title, and to perpetuate testimony, as also to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. In a case where a Court makes a declaration in respect of a disputed status, important rights flow from such a judicial declaration, not only binds persons who are actually parties to the litigation but also persons claiming through them. It is, thus, a rule of substantive law and is distinct and separate from the rule of res judicata, it is narrower in one sense and wider in another. The doctrine of res judicata lays particular stress upon the competence of the Court, but this section emphasizes the legal position that it is a judgment in personem, as distinguished from a judgment in rem.”

Conclusion:

 In view of the above, a ‘quiet title’ action / proceeding removes cloud or possible encumbrance on title to a property and firmly establishes, in law, ownership of the property. The Indian Courts have decided in a catena of cases that viewed from its objectivity, such declaratory relief has great importance. The effect of such declaration is to prevent future litigation by removing existing causes of controversy, to quiet title, and to perpetuate testimony, as also to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.

The views and opinions expressed in this article belong solely to the author and do not reflect the position of TLH, Advocates & Solicitors.

[1] 1958 AIR SC 886

[2] MANU/WB/0388/1916

[3] MANU/WB/1075/2013