In a recent legal precedent, the Supreme Court upheld the longstanding principle under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act of 1963, emphasizing that a suit solely for the declaration of title without seeking recovery of possession is not tenable when the plaintiff is not in possession of the property in question. The Court underscored the flexibility of amending the plaint at any stage of the legal process, including the appellate stage.
The Division Bench comprising Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Sanjay Karol deliberated on whether a suit solely seeking a declaration of title could be entertained in light of Section 34 of the Act.
This statutory provision grants the Court discretionary power to declare rights or statuses. However, it includes a crucial proviso stating that the Court shall not grant such a declaration if the plaintiff, capable of seeking further relief beyond mere title declaration, neglects to do so. Thus, the proviso curtails the Court’s discretion when the plaintiff refrains from seeking additional relief alongside the title declaration.
The Appellant contended that the suit should not have been decreed since the Plaintiff solely pursued a declaration of title without seeking possession recovery. Conversely, the Plaintiff/Respondent argued that they were not entitled to possession when initiating the proceedings as the property was under the limited heir’s control. The opportunity to seek possession arose only after the heir’s demise.
To settle this legal query, the Court referred to precedents illustrating the permissibility of amending suits to include consequential relief. For instance, in Venkataraja and Ors. v. Vidyane Doureradjaperumal, the Court noted the proviso’s aim to prevent multiple proceedings, as a mere declaratory decree often lacks enforceability.
Similarly, in Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin, the Court emphasized that the proviso restricts declarations where further relief could have been sought.
Drawing on established case law such as Ram Saran v. Ganga Devi and Vinay Krishna v. Keshav Chandra, which deemed title declaration suits without possession claims as inadmissible, the Court upheld the same stance. The decision in Executive Officer, Arulmigu Chokkanatha Swamy Koil Trust, Virudhunagar v. Chandran and Others further reinforced the necessity of seeking possession recovery when the plaintiff is not in possession.
Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, highlighting the Plaintiff’s failure to amend the plaint to include possession recovery relief post the life-estate holder’s demise in 2004.
Loading...
Reload document 
Open in new tab 
