Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Supreme Court in the matter of Vasantha (Dead) Thr. LR V. Rajalakshmi @ Rajam (Dead) Thr.Lrs., has held that under the provisions of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act,1963 (SRA) a suit for declaration of title without seeking recovery of possession is not maintainable when the plaintiff is not in possession.

What was the Background of Vasantha (Dead) Thr. LR V. Rajalakshmi @ Rajam (Dead) Thr.Lrs. Case?

• In this case, the action that set-in motion in the year 1947, when a mother transferred property inherited at the death of her husband, in one form to her two sons and in another, to her daughter.
• Some forty-odd years later, the daughter’s husband filed a suit in respect of such property, in 1993.
• The Trial Court decided the matter in 1999 and held that the plaintiff has not taken any action in respect of the document executed and filed the suit in the year 1993 and held that the suit is barred by Limitation and the rights of the plaintiff were abated.
• Thereafter, the First Appellate Court confirmed the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, and the appeal was dismissed.
• The Second Appeal was filed before the High Court in which the High Court held that plaintiff will be entitled to half share of the property after the lifetime of life estate holder.
• It is against this order and judgment that the present civil appeal has been preferred before the Supreme Court which was later allowed by the Court.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The Division Bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Sanjay Karol observed that it is a well-established position of law that under Section 34 of SRA, a suit for declaration of title without seeking recovery of possession is not maintainable when the plaintiff is not in possession.
• The Court relied on the judgment given in the case of Venkataraja and Ors. v. Vidyane Doureradjaperumal (Dead) thr. LRs, (2014).
  • The Supreme Court held that the purpose behind Section 34 of SRA is to prevent a multiplicity of proceedings. A mere declaratory decree remains non-executable in most cases.

What is Section 34 of SRA?

About:

• This Section deals with the discretion of the Court as to declaration of status or right. It states that—
  • 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 inexistence, and for whom, if in existence, he would be a trustee.
• The section provides that courts have discretion as to declaration of status or right, however, it carves out an exception that a court shall not make any such declaration of status or right where the complainant, being able to seek further relief than a mere declaration of title, omits to do so.

Case Law:

• In Ram Saran v. Ganga Devi (1973), the Supreme Court had held that the suit seeking for declaration of title of ownership but where possession is not sought, is hit by the proviso of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and, thus, not maintainable.