Specific Relief Act, 1963 – ss.31 and 34 – The Title Suit, bearing No. 88/1997 was filed by the plaintiff, seeking declaration, confirmation of possession and mandatory injunction over the suit land – The T.S. No. 88/1997 came to be allowed in favour of the plaintiff by the Trial Court – First Appellate Court vide two different judgments, both dated 17.06.2006, affirmed the findings of the Trial Court – However, the High Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs on the ground that in the absence of challenge to the subsequent sale deed and omission on the part of the plaintiff to seek the consequential relief of cancellation of the sale deed, the plaintiff would be disentitled from obtaining a decree declaring his right, title and interest over the suit property – Correctness: Held: The plaintiff in the present case, not being the executant of the sale deed dated 05.05.1997 executed in favour of the respondent no.1 (original defendant no.14), was therefore, not obligated to sue for its cancellation u/s.31 of the Act, 1963 – The question that remains is whether the plaintiff ought to have sought for a declaration that the sale deed dated 05.05.1997 was inoperative in so far as he is concerned or is not binding on him – One should not lose sight of the fact that a suit for declaration of title to be decided by a court takes within its fold, consideration of several factors as to how the plaintiff is entitled for declaration of title – In such cases, the plea of the defendants about the validity, enforceability and binding nature of any document defeating the title of the plaintiff have also to be considered – In such cases, the court naturally views the evidence on both sides leaving apart the frame of the suit – Therefore, the High Court having concurred with the Courts below on the legality and validity of the Gift Deed should not have dismissed the suit only on the ground that the plaintiff failed to pray for cancellation of the sale deed – The High Court should have kept the settled position of law in mind that the declaration of title is as good as a relief of cancellation of the sale deed or at least, a declaration that the sale deed is not binding on the plaintiff being void and thus non est. [Paras 34-36]
Specific Relief Act, 1963 – s.34 – Discretion of court as to declaration of status or right – Examination of s.34: Held: Section 34 entitles a person to approach the appropriate court for a declaration, if that person is entitled to (i) any legal character or (ii) any right as to any property – “Legal character” and “right to property” are used disjunctively so that either of them, exclusively, may be the basis of a suit – The disjunctive ‘or’ cannot be read as a conjunctive ‘and’. [Para 26]
Specific Relief Act, 1963 – s.34 – Object of the proviso to s.34: Held: The object of the proviso to s.34 is to obviate the necessity for multiple suits by preventing a person from getting a mere declaration of right in one suit and then subsequently seeking another remedy without which the declaration granted in the former suit would be rendered otiose – However, the answer to the question whether it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to ask for further relief must depend on the facts of each case and such relief must be appropriate to and consequent upon the right or title asserted – “Further relief” must be a relief flowing directly or necessarily from the declaration sought, i.e., the relief should not only be capable of being granted but of being enforced by the court and such relief should be necessary to make the declaration fruitful – The relief must also be such that it is not automatically granted to the plaintiff by virtue of the declaration already sought for. [Para 27]
Specific Relief Act, 1963 – s.34 – Words used in proviso to s.34 are “further relief” and “no other relief”: Held: The words used in proviso to s.34 are “further relief” and “no other relief” – Since, a further relief must flow necessarily from the relief of declaration, if such further relief is remote and is not connected in any way with the cause of action which has accrued in favour of the plaintiffs, then there is no need to claim a further relief and the proviso to s.34 will not be a bar – All that the proviso forbids is a suit for pure declaration without necessary relief where the plaintiff being able to seek such a relief, has omitted to do so – The proviso must not be construed in a manner which compels the plaintiff to sue for any and all the reliefs which could possibly be granted to him – The plaintiff must not be debarred from obtaining a relief that he wants for the reason that he has failed to seek a relief which is not directly flowing from the relief of declaration already sought for. [Para 28]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.