2021 Supreme(SC) 975

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru)
L. Nageswara Rao, Aniruddha Bose, JJ.
Akkamma and Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Vemavathi and Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 5884 of 2009
Decided On : 25-11-2021

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) There is no bar in Specific Relief Act, 1963 in granting standalone declaratory decree.
(2) Discretion in granting declaratory decree on ownership cannot be exercised by Court to deny such relief on sole ground that original plaintiff has failed to establish his case on further or consequential relief.
(3) Possession follows title – Prohibition contained in proviso to Section 34 would operate only if sole relief is for declaration without any consequential relief.

Headnote:

(A) Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Section 34, Proviso – Declaratory suit – Possession follows title – Prohibition contained in proviso to Section 34 would operate only if sole relief is for declaration without any consequential relief – Reliefs claimed by original plaintiff were both for declaration and injunction, but latter having failed to establish possession of suit land, his case for injunction restraining defendants from interfering with suit land failed – Original plaintiff in earlier suit had admitted possession as also use of subject-land by first defendant – No case of granting right of user has been made out either – Neither plaintiff has alleged casual use of subject-land by first defendant – Possession of suit property was not established by plaintiffs and injunctive relief could not be granted. (Paras 12, 14 and 15)

(B) Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Section 34, Proviso – Declaratory suit – Prohibition contained in proviso to Section 34 of 1963 Act determines maintainability of a suit and that issue has to be tested on the basis plaint is framed – If plaint contains claims for declaratory relief as also consequential relief in form of injunction that would insulate a suit from an attack on maintainability on sole ground of bar mandated in proviso to the section – If on evidence plaintiff fails on consequential relief, suit may be dismissed on merit so far as plea for consequential relief is concerned but not on maintainability question invoking proviso to Section 34 of 1963 Act – If plaintiff otherwise succeeds in getting declaratory relief, such relief could be granted. (Paras 16 and 17)

(C) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order II Rule 2 – Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Section 34 – Bar on subsequent suit – There is no bar in Specific Relief Act, 1963 in granting standalone declaratory decree – In present case, prayer for declaration was anchored on two instances of interference with possession of land of plaintiffs and injunctive relief for restraint from interference with property was also claimed – Foundation of case of plaintiffs based on these two factual grounds collapsed with fact-finding Courts rejecting both these assertions or allegations – But that factor ought not to be a ground for denying declaration of ownership to plaintiffs – Claim for declaratory decree could well be rejected on merit, but suit in such a case could not be dismissed invoking principles incorporated in Order II Rule 2 of CPC. (Para 17)

(D) Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Section 34 – Declaratory suit – Discretion in granting declaratory decree on ownership cannot be exercised by Court to deny such relief on sole ground that original plaintiff has failed to establish his case on further or consequential relief – Injunction could be granted restraining defendants from disturbing or interfering with original plaintiffs’ possession of suit land – But as Trial Court found ownership of original plaintiff was proved, original plaintiff was entitled to declaration that he was absolute owner of suit property – There is no bar in granting such decree for declaration and such declaration could not be denied on reasoning that no purpose would be served in giving such declaration – Plaintiffs were not entitled to injunctive relief as prayed for but plaintiffs are entitled to declaration that they are owners of suit property and there shall be decree to that effect. (Paras 19 and 20)

Facts of the case:

Appellants are plaintiffs in a suit instituted in year 1987 by their predecessor Arakeri Abbaiah claiming for declaration of ownership of certain immovable property comprising of 10.54 guntas situated in Vibhuthipura Village, Krishnarajapura Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk. Relief was also claimed in that suit in form of injunction directing the defendants therein not to interfere with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. On his death, Arakeri Abbaiah’s legal representatives were brought on record. In this judgment, we shall refer to Arakeri Abbaiah as original plaintiff. He was the son-in-law of the first defendant in the suit Muniyappa. Both the defendants have passed away subsequently and their legal representatives are on record. The original second defendant was the son of the first defendant at the time the suit was instituted. Prior to this suit, another suit was filed by the original plaintiff involving broadly the same immovable property in the year 1982. We shall discuss about the said suit later in this judgment and two suits shall be henceforth referred to by their years of institution, i.e. 1982 suit and 1987 suit respectively. The case of original plaintiff before the Trial Court was that he had purchased suit land from its erstwhile owner, Papaiah under a registered sale deed dated 29th May, 1972. The total area of the land that the original plaintiff claimed to have had purchased was 1 acre 15 Guntas and disputed property forms part of that block of land. In the plaint, original plaintiff’s case was that he was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the suit land ever since the date of purchase.

Findings of Court:

We sustain the judgment of the High Court that the plaintiffs were not entitled to injunctive relief as prayed for and also the rejection of the plaintiffs’ plea for introduction of relief for possession. But at the same time, we set aside that part of the judgment by which it has been held that the plaintiffs were disentitled to declaration of ownership of the property.

Result : Appeal Partly allowed.