Source: Himachal Pradesh High Court

Why in News?

Justice Vivek Singh Thakur has observed that Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (SRA) does not automatically bar a suit for mere declaration of title, even if the plaintiffs could have sought additional consequential relief.

• The Himachal Pradesh High Court gave this judgment in the case of Sudhakar Sharma & others v.Nandini Mishra & others.

What is the Background of Sudhakar Sharma & others v.Nandini Mishra & others Case?

• The main contention raised by the petitioners was that the respondents, who claimed ownership of the disputed property, had never been in possession. The petitioners argued that since the suit was for a declaration without seeking consequential relief of possession, it was barred by Section 34 of the SRA, 1963.
• While the respondents countered this argument by stating that their visits to their grandfather's property, even after his demise, demonstrated their possession. They asserted that the question of possession should be adjudicated during the main suit and that the application to reject the plaint was premature.
• The court noted that the suit filed by the respondents was not merely for a declaration but included consequential reliefs such as permanent prohibitory injunction and damages and emphasized that possession is a fact to be established through evidence during the trial and cannot be determined solely based on the contents of the plaint.
• The impugned order, affirming the rejection of the application under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) was upheld by the court.

What was the Court’s Observation?

• Section 34 of the SRA does not mandate that a declaratory suit without consequential relief which respondents-plaintiffs being able to seek have omitted to do so, is not maintainable at all.
• Rather it provides that no such declaration shall be made by the court for omission on the part of the respondents-plaintiffs to seek further relief other than a mere declaration of title which could have been sought by the respondents/plaintiffs.

What are the Legal Provisions Involved?

• Section 34 of Specific Relief Act, 1963: Discretion of court as to declaration of status or right.
  • Any person entitled to any legal character, or to any right as to any property, may institute a suit against any person denying, or interested to deny, his title to such character or right, and the court may in its discretion make therein a declaration that he is so entitled, and the plaintiff need not in such suit ask for any further relief:
  • Provided that no court shall make any such declaration where the plaintiff, being able to seek further relief than a mere declaration of title, omits to do so.
  • Explanation- A trustee of property is a “person interested to deny” a title adverse to the title of someone who is not in existence, and whom, if in existence, he would be a trustee.
• Order 7 Rule 11 (d) CPC
  • It provides for the rejection of a plaint when ‘the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law.’